one on one rejections the claims here are directed to a method of providing a new dice game using a new specifically claimed arrangement of die at least three die and for this reason we think that the claims pass under the first prong of the test however i want to start with prong to for the reason that we believe that prong two is probative of other issues that arise in the section one of three context notably the printed matter issues and we believe that prong two was just the simpler standard fifty two deck of cards and when judge stall found in that case and that decision was that those claims were directed to an abstract idea of playing card games and although they were ineligible under prong two for being conventional potentially differ if a nonstandard non conventional deck of fifty two parts was used and that's exactly what we have here the p t o agrees that if the in the brief if the the limitations on the die are given weight that the did the problem to analysis would be informed where they can non conventional nonstandard deck of cards would would your position be different if the patent were directed to a set of three six sided  or that betting would apply to the number six on one of the dice the numbers six and five on the second of the dice and the numbers six five and four on the third of the dice in that scenario your honor a great price and i believe that would be invalid because the claims the dice themselves will be conventional die and the invention in that case will be directed to the rules of playing the game the mental steps that are being performed by the dealer or the player in that instance to determine what those guy the conventional guy meant in the rules of that context and here we have the stark difference in our claims is that the claim to have the first guy having a first time working on only one side and the claims they only and that was a minute ma during prosecution to specifically overcome the comparison to standardize the second dice as a second by marking on only two sides and the third guy has a third by marking on only three sides and so we believe that language was it specifically guess in these claims as is the markings or lack of markings on the faces of individuals i don't shine i believe that the inventor concept here is a combination of the non conventional dice in addition to the method of playing the dr rice and it sounded like those kinds of interactions and in playing the game in your words would be mental steps that therefore don't really get much weight  and those are the mental steps that i was talking about in ray smith in fact several of the claimed method steps involve mental steps to be performed by the deal of determining if so and so happens in this gait and these claims actually all start with active jerry and steps physical steps rolling wagering pain so they are physical steps that are being that are being claimed and we think that in combination if you look at step two of allison combining the steps with the provision of the non conventional di it does satisfy prong two about origins in fact in section one hundred one and so what are we to do when if we were to conclude there's an abstract idea here you have tracked a wagering playing a game and and then the steps of rolling dice and paying out for a win are conventional steps but then the inventive concept hinges on the information that's communicated to the players based on which side of the individual die faces upwards and that would be that runs it seemingly right into the printed matter doctrine this court is held in predecessor courts of held that printed matter these types of markings on the surface of object is not accorded any patent for weight and in isolation if that's all there is that is not eligible subject matter so what's your response to that apparent challenge to these claims i agree josh and that the printed matter doctrine is informative section one hundred one in fact the examiner and the board did not explicitly provide our apply printed matter to the want to one rejections but we do agree that if the limitations aren't given weight then trying to analysis has to fail so i do agree with the judge and we do believe the printed matter doctrine just does not apply here because we're not claiming that i'm working for the informational content is the and we can answer that question in the negative here because the claims actually specify di markings the specification makes clear that those markings could be a logo or any any sort of indicia the arrangement is what's important here and so in the printed matter  endless continuous nature of a circle of a band and therefore the digits were given weight and we think that's exactly the case here i die is not a piece of paper it's a multi sided object and the fact that we have one one dice with a guy marking on only one side to the section one of three issues of the obviousness issue that's all there is in the record the patent office and the board holder relied on printed matter there's there's no evidence that these claims are karr obvious question about the think that while these inquiries are separate they must be separate is that what we have here her claim to ten eighteen twenty four twenty five and twenty six is an admission that there's there's no evidence to show obviousness and without that evidence we don't see how can be  these very specifically arranged ahura range of this guy in the context of the game and we believe that these there's no motivation because parents wouldn't work with that if you look at carol there's betting fields where usually bet on numbers one through six what number is going to turn up when you roll the stuffs and if you have that that's the betting fields in cairo that wouldn't work with these guys so there's really no in a relation between us and the patent office has one point on obviousness aside from printed matter it's that it would be an rejected i take it are open to issue which if we should reverse on what i want isn't that correct if they're open to issuance it doesn't mean that they will in fact issue ok i'm not sure cases was that there that really matter what the markings were and it really matter where they were physical objects supporting here that's not the you had a measuring cup now you could put the markings on that measuring cup you know the measuring cup allowed you to double a half recipe and triple and so i you could put the markings on the cup so that they face the us are away from the u s or are often to the side but they still had to designate specific volumes on the cup so they needed to be placed on the cup at specific levels and they needed to contain specific words maybe they might use the metric system and maybe they might use the english system but they didn't they needed to i didn't provide certain information and in the case of the r allows you to calculate the probabilities of winning that's pure printed matter and that's something that conventional dye through which shows that these this math i guess the other side is saying well they of winning based on the number of sides you put and it kind of printed matter off and sort of to that extent by limiting the number of sides you put marking on you've you've designed the those winning face and you went on that guy on the second i think you get a six or five and that's your probability is now one in three i you know i'm the last guy you could say winning sides are four five and six and then your probability of winning is new set of cards would arm make the invention an issue in that case that knowledgeable merely said we could envision that there might you know someone might come up with a set  i think taken from one of the boards cases might you might be able to help me on this the the board case i think involved a chess game that added a piece actually two pieces which i think called esquires so they moved in a way different from the knights bishop trucks kings and queens and pawns all right so with a ten by ten board and they said yeah that's that's i guess that was all fair patterns but i don't think that there is there are any cases that would support what we have here i mean if you if you looked at cases like mayo what we have here is essentially like in mayo where you're really talking about some combination of mental steps and some instructions about how you correlate instructions about how to dose certain medication based on lab results and so here you're just saying ok well if you here's how you parlay this that throughout this math you're simply say you know we're going to parlay about across three sets of diet which is all conventional you're going to identify winning faces the probabilities of you getting a winning tie face will increase as you roll each of the three die  you know and and my saying that i just when i when i'm giving that example now i'm realizing that one of the things that appellate has argued in his brief is that you know mayo talks about a preemptive the fact this would have a preemptive  what are they allowing these days do you have any idea i mean what what kinds of games possess an inventive concept at this point i don't i don't know per se but i know that this from recall we have a lot of cases but are those all just slot machine type cases with different ways of playing the game yes that are where the focus is on the technology there's this is an area where there is  or made reference to that characterization as well what you have an idea of what the agency regards as a method of organizing human activity what's their understanding of that phrase in terms of how they apply it to hundreds of thousands of applications each year i mean obviously not every application gets of one on one rejection but i'd like to know what you can tell us about how the agency understands that phrase well i'd like to give you both a general talking about rules for playing a particular game and that is that was the case is that in a larger sense of the word i mean that's of organizing human activity thirdly would be restricted to games  might it might be rules for a particular dance it might be you know i mean methods of organizing people could be a lot of arrangements this is arrangement so i guess that's yes that's it could be understand methods of organizing human activity one is being prepared and it should issue in the next couple of months i'm sure you're aware and i i feel that maybe this way you're question agency with you these things but with all art what's happened in this case is not that that future guidance will not affect this case at all even though th guidance so i have one more question i just really find it difficult to apply one a one in the setting but i understand that you know it's there and we have to try but with respect to the rules of games and suppose i go over to the patent office and i like i say i have a new game that looks a lot like monopoly but it's updated i've got instead of mr moneybags i have you know warren i have different little characters i don't have the symbol i have a spaceship or something that would that be pat implements were different in essence you're implements would be conventional in implements i mean what you describe alone is not would not be enough to move the method of playing that game in the difference the fact that i put different names on the properties that i added new tokens it would be the generation it would be the new pieces it would be the new the whole kit essential learning to play the game in combination with the gameplay that the  industry or the markings you couldn't claim them for what they say what the price was what the property was a monopoly but overall with the kit and the pieces it does the new manufacture absolutely or process that uses it use there you're still playing the game of chess and you're still using the pieces just because one piece changes in appearance i don't think that would really affect the analysis i think actually part face the more of it is really interesting because they added the column in row to the chess board which affected the gameplay and effect of the information a chair exists and it conveys the fact that it's a chair and that's exactly the logic that's being applied to the dice in this case and looking at the we think that we have on the second problem much more then the vessel while surely functionally related to the the volumetric measurements in that vessel we have much more in this case we have a multi sided die that have a very specific arrangement of in disha to the extent that we get past that first prong of printed matter and we actually do look