our next case is two zero one seven dash one for nine for automated tracking solutions versus the coca cola company frequency identification are for the technology computer programs and database applications network technologies and hardware all that for locating identifying trekkie and surveillance of i think it's the key there is that the arc id technology itself promise you argued it but you don't have that in the pleadings you have no evidence attached that says that your patent doesn't say that so while whether it's conventional might very well be a fact question it seems like a fact question to me whether something is well known to somebody at a particular time in history but you didn't make an allegation which if accepted as true would have preserved a right because there are no allegations in your pleadings that say that there's only attorney argument in the brief and that is not configuration for r f i d technology taught in the claims it is a reader with a tether that has importantly a coverage area and that coverage area all readers have a coverage range  it would have read those tags but then he would have lost his ability as the individuals went through out of the front of them and you're making a very good point now you have some depending claims that talk about sensor location for this invention but your independent claims don't so the point you're making now which i don't want you to abandon because it's a good point is that we did demonstrate some real novelty in the combination of sensors and locations that wasn't present in the prior art because we contract within the building whereas everything else  tells you whether or not the test welling in the coverage area or has it exited the coverage area because there has been those second sighting and if you look at the state information for the entire coverage area that tells you claimed one of the seven six six patent what about the invention what structural aspects of your system might be important for the invention sure so the claim one  read by the by the reader and by maintaining that information you maintain visibility of the tag throughout the coverage area and therefore perhaps throughout the facility that's critical that was lo now you're honest we believe this case is indistinguishable from alice which either this one is how you pronounce it or in that case you had some inertial sensors that were placed in certainly patients and you have a mathematical algorithm together resulted in the outcome a point number one was the sensor locations were entirely new and that those new locations were claimed and that that was meaningful because it really changed the entire formula that you would historically have used to make these calculations it was a because of changing the location of the sensors with the desire to change the location of sensors you had to come from a whole new way of calculating i don't see that here in these particularly the broader what we've done is what is it about the structural components and how they work together that might be different or unconventional i mean it sounds as if all of that i'm hearing you describe as being the twenty three twenty four  argument you've made  it is not an abstract idea to tie a system to a real world physical constraint which is a coverage area that has a physical dimension it's something that was not done by humans could that's critical information that can then be used for whole host of applications but it is at this very core these claims are directed to our f i d systems and i think that doesn't now i guess to the inertial sensor system in dallas for of expect very material it would be nice if there was a great deal of explanatory material there is nothing new being claimed in the patents and the patents repeatedly referred to the idea of being covered as asset locating tracking and surveillance i agree with you that the patent suggests that maybe the individual components are conventional but where does the patent or anything else in the record before the district court say it's a combination of all those things together was not new or was conventional where where is that state weather because you might have a situation where all of the elements themselves are conventional but we need to also id system you always had a true under a reader and intent on any computer and those are the only components claimed in the patents again just exemplary if you look at claiming forty nine of the patent the oh wait hear what you're saying by to be honest with you that's not going to persuade me it would soften what i'm just where the thing is troubling me about this case is that most of the claims are directed to a system as i mentioned and there are specific hardware components and following supreme court case law for example alice and alice and cases like alice are talking about the idea that i have an idea and now i'm going to say ok do it on a computer these claims be viewed differently these claims could be viewed as i have a system it's for performing a certain function and these are the electronic components of that system and the question is how far do we go with one it wind to be go so far that we're going to include a telecommunication systems where there's different electronic components of the system so how far do we go here and why is this this isn't just a computer case this has other elements besides a computer so how do you respond to that i would  for q r codes but it didn't have any technological improvement and that's what alice and fish have talked about in its progeny of top is what is that technological improvement that leads us to being and not have to act idea that it doesn't matter that this isn't just a computer there's other components in the system the fact that there's because it's electronic so long as all those prior hardware components were conventional it doesn't matter they're everything that is like that it's going to be ineligible so unless somehow the hardware's change that's your position though to it that i would say it depends on the outcome of alice's step because it could be that there was places and they use a different reference point alice was decided or step one but they also talked about that one of the things that talked about was that they'd used the known components in a different way so i would say it wouldn't matter of alice two very often but i would say that if you were using computer components that are all existing and they are doing an abstract idea that may have sped it up that it would not be eligible unless those comp well it moves into another place and then we know that it's not in the first place but our if i did technology inherently is designed to show you where the object is so that as long as you one of our points is that there is no technological improvement you they're using are inside the technology for the exact purpose for which it was meant to be uniting they're just applying the no technology to the abstract idea of trafton objects and as i said op everything that's claimed could be done by a person taking inventory or keeping track of objects on a clipboard i think what you're also and necessarily saying is everything that's claim could be done with existing secured mail case and what you're discussing now with judge well it is the coverage areas the patent makes a lot of the fact that you can have an enormous warehouse and separately locate these sensors in order to cover particular coverage areas and that makes for a meaningful difference i mean yes the antennas me and here only have coverage areas but they recognize that combining them the way they have would enable the r f id system to track these objects a lot better that's a lot different than just standing at the door and argument of three people doing it it's just outrageous to me because then every automated system even if you know a can assembly line everything and see what this can all be done by people beforehand everything can be done by people before him except cervix dream super computer calculation what i'm saying is that what you're talking about having it in different places and they try to say that what they have is a specialized arthritis system none of that is actually claimed in the patents if you look at their arguments about you know horrified the sensors don't have storage capacity specifications or whether claims are eligible you can look at to determine what the abstract idea is yes but you still need to look at what is actually claimed to decide whether or not it claims that knowledgeable stuff matter the fact that they may have talked about it and because we also don't know if it was in prior art work that was if it was part of this but they don't claim it one of the things that's hard here is that you know when we come back and forth on this system is it directed to the idea of locating identifying or tracking at to the extent that you're looking at the specification to try to determine whether this is directed to an abstract idea or not how do you respond to that because the specification does have specific details it has to do tales of things or were known and the abstract idea and that's a question of war and performance are well understood routine conventional activities previous you know again they have not claimed that any of the technology or any the hardware is new and all they're doing is taking what was done did that is that when you say a test came back with four is there something somewhere that i can read where the parties agree that these claims find all the other claims to the page because the confusing thing for me is he makes arguments both on appeal and that seem to me only to apply to dependent claims and he wants me to read them in the independent claims but he didn't make those arguments i felt i feel like he did separately argue the defendant claims so i'm kind of saying now which consider these other dependent claims too because they have separate rationales for well so i guess he thought the representative claims could read in certain things is a matter of plain construction if they don't but if they depending claims clearly do contain those limitations too should we really hold him to your whole patent stead under a circumstance like that i think so i don't i think he had an obligation if you believed that additional claim should have been included in the representative claims he had an obligation to raise that with the court in that do so he did not then preserve his right to say well i know i said there was four but these other two should be considered too i think would be a waiver issue i don't think your over the answer is no that's the key is that we're using the coverage areas it's a useful tool but we're using the current areas for them they're quite meet in the visibility of the text about computers that was not done there may be components that are conventional but that that can't be the case that just because there are potential components within the claim that i do mystically from accountability point of view just like we've seen in d n a where the rubber press was certainly conventional but they sighting for the first transponder in the coverage area and then that's used to determine whether it's two and that is the visibility that's a state information about the transponder and that is a critical paradigm shift over what was done three do you think the new thing the combination of elements that you have put together and the novelty that flows from that combination because each of the individual elements are certainly conventional do you think the new is utilizing this coverage area and taking multiple passes you know multiple checks i mean it seems like all the prior systems disclosed in the background are it comes in the