obviously considerably more than what the district court failed to do is that it ignores the fact that the seventy five patent actually claimed how to obtain a specific types of data needed  you're talking about a thick type of application particularly one such as here where it's rooted in a technical problem for those reasons we have the court reversed the district court need to know what do you jackley is the alleged technical problem that came with automating the calculation of the list metric and more so how is that specifically claimed the solution to that technical problem that technical solution to that technical problem how is it specifically claimed and claim one thank you your honor the answer that's fairly straightforward here  network and the problem with that is that the devices may actually these two pieces of content well dr devices at different times through a network based communication and you don't the audio visual device before or after the audio visual communication and so what the patent says you have to you have to eliminate the instances where the where the advertisement arrived before the audio visual content and the pattern actually described the specifications described as by being a specific thing that you need to look out for because what the patent suffocation doing as it says a lot of ordinary skill in the art may not know it has to filter out this information and advertisement reaching before and so the patent teaches that you actually have to get rid of the columns flying fifty one to fifty seven e one is that it really talks about creating a database database structure to separate eleven for the audio visual communication and one for the advertisement and both of is the content that was the lever the nd is what is the device that it was delivered to and the rd one of this one of the particularly critical one we were just talking about is to know the time of the delivery because that the key to the invention is the difference in the time for the program content versus the time for the digital ad yes you aren't as times  that certainly is an important part of the fact that there's a matching server your honor that also marries together these two disjointed communication is an important component because that all the unique identifier right  so it says this audio visual communication and this were delivered to the same device and then along the day they eliminate those timing elements where the digital ad was received after the audio visual program was watch now what the what the respondent here is they actually do with a brick and mortar example of coupon thing get that given out a grocery store but in many ways the example they provide proves too much because they don't talk anything about network communication if i'm handing out advertisement before someone goes into a store and someone makes a purchase there's no question that it happened before someone went into the store but network based communications that isn't the case information is that across networks in a disjointed or asynchronous way and you have to have a technical way to actually make an evaluation both the f a p case and that line which includes the electric power grid case those really don't apply the particular types of information you need to look at they don't talk anything about how do you in the structure of solving a problem rooted in computer networks and one other case that we discussed in our papers and i'll point your honor as to as the palace case which specifically talked about solving problems a new stream media which we refer to as your honour's this court has drawn a hard distinction between claims that are directed to an improvement in a device or a network on the one hand and method claims on the other which themselves merely claim performing an abstract idea that's implemented using computers the former type of claim can be patent eligible in this cour found such claims eligible in cases like and fish and visual memory the latter are those that simply recites performing an abstract idea using a computer program computer components that are generic are not patent eligible directed to an improvement in computers or networks but they don't fit all the claims are not directed to improve computer networks but to a purported improvement in an abstract idea in calculating  using computers to perform that abstract idea the claims themselves and you heard counsel for alfonzo discuss that link the specification but really the focus here has to be on what the claims are directed to and those claims make plain that they're directed to the abstract idea of measuring the effectiveness of an advertisement through steps that are describing the specification as routine of data gathering of analysis and mathematical and confirmed in the specification as entirely generic with respect to the st and nd data bases the specification st confirms that the president mentioned may be implemented with any combination of hardware these claim limitations that i'm referring to why are they in technical improvement because they they recite and council has still identified no improvement to the operation of computers or computer networks rather than an improvement perhaps in the performance of an abstracted idea there is no disclosed improvement in the operation of computers in line with the with the cases where this court has found claims pat as described in the specification is simply identifying a t v show so its name will do there is no improvement in the operation of computers disclose their counsel for alfonzo spend a significant amount of time describing why time it effects an improvement or the storage of time affects an improvement it creates no improvement in the operation of computers and peter networks the relevance of time in the claim is so that the calculation of lift can verify whether or not you are of a television program also saw the ad for the ad before they viewed that program the time must be recorded for both so that the lift calculation can can identify only those monitor devices that st saw an ad then viewed the program because that's essential to the calculations of left nothing that council is identified describe any technical improvement whatsoever there is no how council referred to the structure of the database as the claims require no particular structure for the database of the store data they only recite storing particular kinds of data there is no improve few blinds in the specification but the claims themselves were directed to a specific improvement in the operation of computers and computer networks there is nothing like that here for instance in and off the claims were themselves directed to an enhanced accounting record that the court in accordance with the construction offered provided by the district court entailed a distributed architecture in which accounting records were processed close to their sources before being transmitted to a centralized manager there is nothing like that in the seventy five plan there is no improved architecture no improved computer in the computer system very little in fact none of  if there are no for the questions on step one i will proceed to step t the under step to these claims can be paten eligible only if they recite sufficient additional inventive elements such that there is somehow something significantly more than an abstract idea here there is no inventive concept here in these claims the claims recite only conventional computer equipment performing routine functional steps and there's a server in communication with a couple of databases and nothing  and in the district before the district court shows that the five patent claims were site only generic computer components operating with respect to each other in conventional ways in performing routine steps of collecting storing and analyzing data in the expected way and in the expected order of operations with each other data is collected it is retrieved and then a mathematical calculations performed on it using generic and conventional alfonzo again has never explained what is actually unconventional unconventional about the side secret of our sequence of operations in the claims or how those operations either taken singly or in combination  causes any computer to behave in unexpected ways or causes the functioning of these compounds to to be functioning in any unconventional way as the claims in cases where this  fifty five patent claim elam's were anything other than well understood routine and conventional the path itself raises no fact issue concerning conventionality the only state regarding conventional is made in the specification is that conventional techniques for measuring the effectiveness of such campaigns are inadequate but that creates no factual issue it is a mere conclusion there is nothing in the specification that describes what those conventional techniques were why they were inadequate or how the claimed invention addresses those inadequacies let alone that addresses them in some unconventional way alfonso for the district court proposed no claim construction which would have imported any of the things you heard today into the claims themselves the complaint before the district court raises no disputed question materials back to preclude judgement against all forms with a little stage tells us that any unique identifier can be used in the context of these claims there is nothing unconventional there there is no improvement the operation of computers or computer networks there is simply performing the abstract idea using made which i have an issue with is he said that this does not improve the operation of computers in any way and is rooted in computer technology however this solution addresses a specific problem reflected in computer networking and one could make the same argument that mr nelson made in the dock case and the d v r case a lot of the pocket intelligence this court i want to turn briefly back to a question john stoll asked me during my preliminary remarks related to the unique identifier that was also an issue that mr nelson raised that is indeed an important part of the  and the specification actually talks about how one can determine that you're actually identifying the device correctly and it talks about instances where you might have multiple computers on the same home network or the same network or if someone were to move to say a free problem why find that work and how you can do the device identification to identify specific devices and we discussed this in detail campaign another week and see how the audio you viewership changed between the two weeks those are each kind of less metrics one could calculate that wouldn't be covered by the patent at all so there's no preemption issue here and that's a good