done you've been my locker for the past year and it's i'm sure that you would say that it's going by fast that's because they say that we work hard time flies you know you're excellent work product has to your work ethic and you have done well in my chambers you brought honor to my chambers as well as to this honorable court so i wish you the best in the future i know that the man who stands in the well this court will represent the profession well will be an excellent lawyer and a leading light in the u s i p profession i move for admission three underlying c b m proceedings mr franklyn plans to address all the claims that the board correctly ruled to be patent in eligible across all three patents i plan to address the institute of claims that the board incorrectly declined to rule patent in eligible these claims are dependent claims three six to nine eleven and thirteen to sixteen of a seven three three pack dealing with additional inventive concept that add significantly more to the abstract idea that amaranth has tried to monopolize the supreme court's decision in alice in this court's decisions in cases like by sea cyber source intellectual ventures and ultimate shall the patent supports a legal ruling of unpacking ability in sri ways any one of these three ways is enough by itself to reverse the board's decision on these claims first your honour's absence of any disclosure of an inventive concept renders these claims unpatentable under step two of the supreme court's alast asked after the board has found that the claims are drawn to an abstract concept the board is required to conduct a quote search for an inventive concept and that added significantly more to the abstract idea itself and is not just token post solution activity i guess you had that burden right the burden to show was a little to conclude a little bit too much handwaving and so therefore at least with respect to these claims unlike other claims you didn't really marshal your case effective enough so what's wrong with what the board said that your honor the board's ruling on that point was incorrect for three reasons first petitioners did make their case and marshal their evidence on these claims in the petition well you right but i don't believe you actually cited those certain passages of the patents back to the patent or with respect to these particular clients is that correct your honor that is not correct because identified as claims one to sixteen and we're talking about those challenge claims together each and every one of them and in that argument the petitioner cited to several portions of the patent specification most notably to column six one forty eight the column seven one three where the specification says that the invention employee's typical hardware that is configured by unspecified honor this argument applies to the depending claims because petitioners identify claims one to sixteen and those two citations from the specification are part of the detailed description of the invention talking about the entire invention the seven three three caught in is a continuation in part of the eight fifty patent and there was some material that the applicants added to the summary of the invention in columns three well known your honor the preservation does talk about the hardware being typical and the software programming steps being commonly known and those statements apply to the ins higher invention and all its cl those statements are not limited to the independent claims or any claims in particular and in the petition a page is a one thirty two and one thirty three the petitioners cited those portions of the specification for all of the challenge cla these claims are well known and they are your honor in this case it is not necessary to submit a series of evidence and in this court has has confirm that in a whole host of cases extrinsic evidence was not necessary evidence to show that no your honor statements in the specification that technologies are well known routine typical or conventional has been held to be sufficient by this particular passages of especially also we found that the that the application steps were well known unconventional but there was evidence in the record that indicated that outside of just something that the panties even necessary here are all that's necessary here your honor even before we get to the specification is the simple absence of the disclosure of an inventive concept under alice once the petitioners raise the section one hundred one argument and identify the challenge claims the board has a duty to search for in find an inventive concept if it's going to uphold the claims as patent eligible to be fair to them to the board to the decision made maker it it's not it's duty it's it's your duty to explain why there's no inventive concept right you're the one with the burden right and then if you don't meet your burden th software stats are so commonly known and nowhere else in the pattern your honor was any even putatively inventive concept disclose there is nothing disclosed that would for example improve the function of any of the technolog limitations all you have are claims that are saying take this business process and apply it with a technology so i guess your point is that when you read the specification it's eminently clear that every single hardware component that it's discussing are referring to is something that was known in the art and so now these claims are using these known component for a particular business process yes your honor that is clear from those passages a column six seven in twelve it is also clear from columns three and four but even if the court were to disregard columns for you and fo column six and twelve are sufficient and even if the court were to accept the board's incorrect refusal to recognize petitioners argument based on column six and twelve the supreme court in alice as like to reserve the rest of our time for mr franklin's argument in intellectual ventures this court stated nowhere does intellectual ventures assert that it invented an interactive interface that manages website content in internet patents your honor the court said the mechanism for maintaining the state is not described although this is stated to be the essential innovation in this case your honor the petitioners did cite to various portions of the that there is no inventive concept for these dependent limitations however even under the board's view the supreme court in alice who said once you find that the claims are drawn to an abstract idea you must search for an inventive concept and if you do not search for and find inventive concepts then these depending claims like all the other claims that the more correctly rule to be ineligible should be held  under section one o one and the judgment should be reversed with respect to those deepening claim please the court in rebuttal to my friend mr panic healthy he's relying on a general statement that known programming techniques makes everything disclosed a functional as a function eventually you think if someone's just uses a programming language that has been available to write their inventive software that's conventional but the inventors did not have to invent a new language in order for their new application software to be an invention that's just basic current let me ask a question about the claims that the board concluded survivor section one  amaranth isn't standing here arguing that it invented voice capture absolutely not and it's also not standing here arguing that it invented handwriting capture technology right absolutely not and it was known to use those technologies as ways of and during data into a computer system correct so what you're arguing is inventive concept is using that known established technology of entering data into a computer system and writing capture voice recognition capture for purposes of  ordering food over you know computer network system and no i would disagree with that characterization what we're saying is that the manual modification was to a  that and been generated from a first in a back office menu if you will for a specialized display device or have built device or weapon it was generated for that it was transmitted do that and then it was modified by manual modification thus all of the couplings between the multi levels of the menus had to had to be addressed in the manual modifications so it's not simply putting some data into a form or recognizing a character or a voice and foot and doing something explaining to that specific meaning all those other elements about generating a second menu from  first menu at the back office server those and everything else that comes with that those were parts those were all recited and claim to the patent board found there to be lacking in in concept right now so for the the particular dependent claims where the patent board went the other way and set these claims are ok and or want to learn the unique aspect about those claims was the fact that there was this voice recognition capture or this this handwriting capture technology that would give use to enter in the these custom orders and that was necessarily what must have been the inventive concept for the i'm just trying to draw a straight line through the pattern boards thinking well they found all the other elements that lack an inventive concept for these dependent claims the inventive concept necessarily must have rested on the usage of voice capture technology or and writing technology to capture the that's correct order but even even given what the mourners cited as the other elements of the claims the board still characterized the claim subject matter as menus having handwriting and running capture for scepter functionality the board did not hold that mere use of voice capture or menu may not have had something that a customer wanted so the menu is modified in the sense that the waiter or a customer out of a remote using a remote i phone or whatever could  data or the handwriting it was the fact it was the fact that the menus were complicated structures they were structures that included multiple levels of categories items m of modifiers and to do provide for manner modification functionality in that and that context required functionality that was specific to the menus that have been generat the handwriting the functionality ears to the functionality ears computer software system that recognizes handwriting converts it into an input that is  device where someone can just write in with lemon when someone orders ice t bill they want to lemon so they i guess the waiter or waitress with an scrawl and on the screen with lemon and then but that concept i don't want to call it inventive concept yet but that concept of and during data in on a screen that handwriting that's that's something that was already known and established but that's not the point concept the concept is doing it in the context of these very complicated multilevel menu's that are either the tree end of the day archie just left  not no evidence was provided otherwise by them i'll make a brief mention about the four nine six patent that they disclose that was just or that they rely on that was just a medical record form it wasn't making any any change to a menu it was making a change to a second menu the been generated from a first menu we're now talking about the deep end and claim about linking customer to a customer's own no i'm not talking about handwriting of voice that it was the first one to link a customer in a restaurant to that customer's order to make sure that the right customer got the order of food right in the context of these to a method of keeping track of warner's and in a restaurant as it gets right system and there's a lot in there and this is on top years here's what i'm wrestling with if i pathetically i agree with the patent board that for the independent claims and all of the elements reciting the independent claims are really nothing more than a business concept being run on a computer network and and therefore it's customer's order to a particular customer at a location in the restaurant as being now something that's sufficient inventive concept above and beyond the ineligible concept running on a computer network from the end if well i understand that and what we disagree with the the more tremor decisions in any of it but even if those are right the board has decided based on the evidence every few that these did add additional functionality that distinguished over its decisions and we think the borgia difference for that decision based on what we said on the groups there are you saying that you would agree that the flames really much to support rejection of those coins there's nothing on the record to support it as a fiction if it's appearing on the intrinsic record then there's no need for any additional evidence p fifty flame one which reflects that for level menus multiple level menus are generated from first menu for a display device and transmitted to that office the screens were different size like a p c version to handle device all of the leakage is between the various levels had to be maintained even though the screen was being was the screen was very much smaller it was a matter of just reducing the maybe the core moment of your claimed invention is being able to take a lot of information about what could be on a menu and reducing it down to something that can be seen and operated with on a small handheld device that's right where in that claim does it really actually say that the that i now what my invention is is somehow now being able to do this on a handheld device that otherwise describe how this is actually hard to do and what we do now that's so interesting to manipulate all that data so that it can be easily seen and worked with on a saw and best of us we have discussed as we have detailed in our briefing the specification supports reading that claim terminology as transforming to something for specialized display the more that actually agreed with us on this the board said that a web page preamble recycle sequence communications system that has to be interpreted as a bi directional system secretness it has me talking to you if you ask a question you expect a response this is a synchronous communication system as that's what the claims are referring to the whole disclosure in the summary the invention and in specification describes the data as an guess you didn't invent the i they ability for updating data in on one device and then that data getting automatic not developed that they did other devices no but we invented transforming the back office menu into a specialized menu for a different nonstandard display device that's why we think the there they have proposed the wrong construction for c p u board got that wrong the board got the preamble construction wrong the board got  the interpretation of menu wrong all those together missed the entire inventive concept with regard to standing there's a huge standing problem here post more defined the abstract idea as generating a menu and then the bourne change the definition of abstract idea to generating a menu generating a second menu from first menu or send it through that location we didn't hear about the revised definition until the final decision we were not given notice it was clear violation  the never allowed claims on appeal entirely irrelevant there was no evidence of vention but the standing issue is a predicate disqualifier for everything on all of these appeals because we did not have an opportunity to address the abstract idea definition that they put forth they actually what they actually agreed with the generating menus not the abstract idea by incorporating what we said part of what we said was significantly more the advent of concepts into their abstract idea definition and sprung that ottis in the final decision after the oral argument after every opportunity for us to address that issue morning read with us you're right the patent owner or maybe maybe one institution decision on one of the patents that generating transmitting menus and then the institution decision on a couple the other patent was a little bit different i'm talking about the eight fifty in three to five it was a little bit different for seven three three but the effect was saying and i don't have a lot of time to get the all those differences but basically they change the definition they they change the grounds we are entitled to notice of the grounds references or interpretation of references had been disclosed on the grounds here unless you allow the board to say the grounds is one hundred one they can do anything they want if they are not required think their story has  preamble that the preamble doesn't region because synchronization is stated in the body of the cleanup as well so there's no need to lame one of the seven three three i thought that was other claims there are there are points which talk about data sinking in the body parts and there are other claims that don't but then refer to it in the preamble and i thought that was what the patent on it was contesting that for those claims where the notion of data sinking was only in the preamble the patent board incorrectly excluded from consideration of the claim and the element and they dislike the words inclusion was that synchronization is required for all the claims to the extent that it didn't rely on the preamble and some of the display ability argument and rant instead argues that display ability is implied in the synchronization the difficulty with this argument is you not only have to display of all of the not separately stated but to the extent that display ability is implied through the claims requirement of synchronization it's also inherent in the prior arts disclosure of synchronization when the claims in the specification require synchronization and the prior art also disclosed the synchronization there's a match to the extent that display ability as a proper characterization of what's required by synchronization it's also attached to the prior art there's no there for the bottom line is there's no getting away from prior art that describes the exact same thing in their display ability argument w more than just the question of data sinking but it's also the chief meant of being able to display all this information on a very small handheld device and then that is what was so interesting about the invention so what do you have to say about that because i think that you contend that the the invention effect of it requires the information to be reviewable which makes sense obviously the invention couldn't function of the waiter or whoever's in the kitchen couldn't again it's implicit in the claim statement synchronization and it's also inherent in the prior art disclosure of synchronisation if you think about it the windows c e operating system if it's promising to the specifications characterization of windows c e is that it provides importing built in synchronization between handheld devices the internet and does top infrastructure for that system to operate for it to really provide the synchronization of a handheld device the information also must be specification talks about all kinds of different technologies that it is using in order to achieve its desired results including the usage of handwriting capture technology and voice capture technology do you agree that those were known conventional things just based on the plain reading of the patent specification not in light of the patent specification but i'll concede that this case has this issue as of all of considerably over the course of this morning if the board's only basis for determining that the petitioners burden hadn't been met with respect to those dependent claims was only those additional correctness of the board's decision in light of the evidence that was before the board it's the officers position that the board's decision was correct in light of the evidence before it because the petitioner simply hadn't presented any evidence no analysis no argument nothing that technology such as voice conversion to text was well known and conventional at the time you don't think a plane reading of the patent spec just reading the four corners that sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that what these inventors were doing were just taking off the shelf voice to text conversion technology and using it for its purposes for amending orders in the restaurant no i don't your honor for several reasons  perhaps amaranth was the first one to end that voice text conversion and more fundamentally you're on the boards and attention was never directed the answer is yes to my question the answer is the board simply didn't answer the presented on the very last page of their brief and it consists of two sentences a conclusion restatement that it's a post solution token technology without any analysis of the actual technology or matching it to the claim limitations and then a statement that the technology could all be done in your head that if you be done by hand with computer that goes to whether the invention is abstract and we grieve with petitioners at the invention is abstract but alice involves two steps after you show it's abstract you also have to demonstrate that that can technology is conventional now in some cases i'll concede that this court has the supreme court has taken judicial notice of the fact that certain computer technology is conventional and alice even the us supreme court as well in say the computer hardest convinced that the conventionality of that technology was perfectly apparent at that day just as much as a computer was it could reach the issues aren't there but obviously the more you get into the ology the more difficult these questions get and the more that the titian has  burden of providing some basis to show that it's not just a computer it's not just the browser of the internet there are additional elements here and at what point in time that technology become commercially available and conventional and again the fundamental issue section was present in the patent his response with respect to some of these dependent claims the argument about secondary considerations about praises reprised in this court only with respect to the board's institution decision and that institution decision  agency of decision makers supposed to do with this kind of evidence and trying to determine whether or not there is this is and there's an event a concept or whether this invention is inherently technological what are you supposed to do with it you know if that evidence had been presented with the the commercial appeal of the praise or the the unexpected success in this particular case the argument is only again presented with respect to an issue that's under reviewable and on top of that the argument is what i'm wondering it's is it a nexus to something that could be regarded as a technological advance or is it merits to say but novelty of a business process that happens to be running on the internet in this case i can't tell you honor because when the argument of spring senate by amaranth they don't cite any aspect of the invention then don't make clear whether it's the abstract idea that's novel or whether it's the computer implementation that earned all of this praise because no element of the invention is identify the account there can't be a nexus to  whether or not this is a technological invention and then they're coming for it with you know if you want to call it secondary consideration of not it's our own but nevertheless they're coming forward with some kind of expensive evidence to try to point out that this is in fact a technological that we are supposed to determine whether or not it was correct for the patton board in an institution decision to conclude that an event was not technological for purposes of instituting a cover business meant that that you agree with me no particular element of the invention aside in relation to the secondary considerations there's no nexus on and under this court's case law they're all there always has to be some next which under some specific feature of the invention for all we know the priests could have derived  technological innovation that was novel and i guess i'm one of them with this whether there is a technical solution to a technical problem so my question is kind of the stuff of which is that it both of those pardons rely on obviousness when you look at the board standard and ultimately to the extent this court concludes that you know her isn't a bar and that decision should be reviewed all of the reasons why this isn't a technological i mean all of the reasons why step two of alice wasn't enough in perspective these claims lean left in as well as all of the other claims that in our opinion the board correctly invalidated as to the first that i could just breath think a brief response to that is that we did hear from the council an argument that relied on a concession or a large i meant about scanning technology and in that case text recognition technology being conventional we don't think that court needs to do that but if the court is has any concern about that i think that of the claims were invalid and they were all invalid because they only utilized had an abstract idea you looked was implemented through conventional technology at that point we presented the issue and the board had the obligation to find an inventive concept but moving moving beyond that i think i've heard a lot from amaranth's council about how the use of the for complicated structures many different times these these these structures are not complicated and the board found them not to be complicated because the patent itself says they're not in the patent says that hierarchical menus we well known in the arts it also says that every other of the is built in component of windows c e windows c e applies specifically to mobile device so they did not invent that either nor did they invent the display  and then stand nonstandard devices which is not an element of the claim but in any event that's also an element of windows c e i also heard from emirates council that this was inventive because they had some sort of novel software that they have they claim now but that's not claimed in the past and in fact the patent claims the opposite all of them say not only is this computer language known but the discrete programming steps are commonly known and therefore did not need to be specified in the written description so again we have no innovative concept in the software what we're left with as the board properly founded is an abstract idea simply the generation and transmission of computer many user and even in hierarchical say combined with the implementation of that method using routine wouldn't marry conventional computer technology how do you change in the original they talk about generating menus and then they talk about generating it transmitting them where that would be because they're generated on two different devices but even putting that to one side there was no prejudiced amaranth of what reviews the final decision and it reviews it they know so the court this port reviews all of the discriminations they know of the emirates apparently complaint is that they didn't have the opportunity to present some sort of an innovation innovative concept in response to the board characterization of the abstract idea but they did they presented all of the components that they claimed to be innovative including including the communication the downloading the synchronization the transmitting from one device to the other that the board included in the abstract idea so i am that said we think this is our invented concept and the board rejected that and you can find that pages twenty one of the twenty two of the pend i believe that's in the seven thirty three case and what the warrant said in those great in that in that passages they said that that this this idea of transmitting to another device is simply  routine conventional activity so it didn't add anything to the the the abstract idea and the board found that and i think that so i'm looking at page twenty one to twenty two of the fifty appendix excuse me and that would be twenty eight to twenty nine of the seven thirty three and what they say is that the specification discloses that the menu was transmitted to the wireless hansel device and web page by downloading such downloading is merely conventional post lucian activity rejected them on the grounds that it is simply insignificant conventional post solution activity i'd like to briefly address if i might the  the secondary considerations evidence and i think want to follow up on some things that judge sauls said yes you're correct your honor that the the board's regulations dealing with the technological invention pran have ha issue that might occur on the merits were those to be in the the case technological invention increase does not depend on a and an obviousness analysis with secondary considerations what it depends on as the  have a computer in it that's these are covered business methods they have computers for sata says that's not enough if the computers in it it has to be a computer using non conventional computer technology that would that would take it out of the c b s interview so if it only uses conventional technology that is not a technical solution to a technical problem that was held in verse saga and that's what the board held in this case the board correctly determined that this was not a technical solution to a technical problem of what would be examples of non conventional computer technology if you invented some sort of you know historic colloquy i think with the council you know if you invented the voice recognition technology that was viewed as your inventive concept that would be non conventional i think that that's the standard now for six or more norm for computer related inventions you have to invent computer technology that's not the standard is that if you're simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer using conventional computer technology that isn't enough and that it's alast that's ultra mercial that's  ip that's i mean there's a big you're on is well aware of all the president i mean certainly there are x there could be exceptions where what you what you invented what was your truly your inventive concept might not necessarily involve  technology we don't have that case before us but we're talking about right now the technical the technological invention component of the the instituting were threshold issue which i  agree frankly that it is reviewable i never saw that issue but that issue really depends on whether there's a technological advantage so whether or not their method itself was novel or not obvious that's not relevant in the is not a technological invention even if that process or method is itself novel and not obvious and that makes sense because we're talking about technological inventions here we're not talking about an invention which is for example maybe a  new abstract idea that you that you're recognizing that's not going to be enough to take the patent out of c b s and review once it's in the review ultimately in this case i think frankly as in vers in the patent discloses an inventive concept on any of the claims and i think we agree with i agree with most of what mr mittal sent defending the board's reasoning and that is that there is nothing invented here it is simply an abstract idea  that is implemented using what the patent itself describes as conventional computer technology about generating a second menu by transforming data resides in multiple other transmitting data but the board look at all of that and said hierarchical many ends are in fact routine and they also said that that altering the menus themselves was also something that was routine you could patent itself describes the technology for says that the common operating systems are used to delete things from menus and add things and here we're looking at something more than just transferring data i mean it's it's transferring data and that results  but that's not that's not the kind of transformation that that which is for example past the machine or transformation test alice makes that clear the court's precedents are clear that just simply transforming data from one form into another doesn't meet the transformation so what you're left with again is simply an abstract idea implemented through conventional technology that's not enough and the work was correct and were found at that wasn't enough and all we're saying here is take that and apply it to all the claims because none of the claims involve anything other than conventional computer technology so your definition of the abstract idea here will accept the board's definition of generating and transmitting  came to defining the abstract idea yes it's generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second many to another location scuse me that's that's the precise little more elaborate what is and i for that i would note though it actually if you look at some of the court's opinions you'll see the abstract idea define it slightly different levels of generality even in the same opinion as looking at the internet patents case and it describes that you know as a couple of different ways in that opinion but yes will accept that specific abstract idea that the borg identified and that there is nothing which one of the first one of the second what that generating a second menu from the first menu and sending the second many to another location that's what was in the in the in the  is de novo and this is a this is a question of law so the court can review de novo the question of law and decide whether or not there isn't fact an invented concept here beyond an abstract idea so i think th you know i'm looking at at the internet patents case the court described the abstract idea a slightly differently in different one that page thirty forty eight of that painting the it talks about the abstract it is retaining information in the in the in the navigation of online forms and then later in the same page the words grab the abstract idea as avoiding loss of data so the fact that it's described it different levels of generality doesn't affect the legal question that the court needs to analyze which is in essence had the added invent of context concept that goes beyond something that is an abstract but when the board or maybe it is even a district court determines that a particular claim element was well known conventional technology and therefore the claim is just resting on performing an abstract process are known conventional technologies but fact finding or is that it legal question whether  killer claim element citing some form of technology is conventional well known that i view it as a legal question your honor and i think that's how the courts have reviewed it otherwise it could not have resolved as mr pena koski said so many cases on motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings it's a legal question and the question is looking at at which is not extremes against looking at the patent is there an inventive concept disclosed here and there is no invent the concept disclosed in path they don't purport to have invented any of the things that they claim they're invented concepts ultimately what we're left with is the abstract idea implemented under routine technology and that we know from all of the it first of all nothing my friends have said takes away from the error of the first definition of abstract idea of i'm happy that they at least would agree to the second definition but that second definition is wrong as well all of the boards one hundred one determinations were based on incorrect claim constructions out of as i discussed previously previously and and detailed very clearly in our  the contrary of what they said the specification does not say that the claim features were well known window seat he didn't have secret as in you generation and transmission as  and bill gates and microsoft lot of amaranth's technology and invested in amaranth specifically for that reason that's in our briefs it was presented to the board they refused to consider it without even a comment just to clarify amaranth i don't know if they sought out microsoft or microsoft found out about them because of a trade show i think that's probably what happened right well microsoft was very interested because this was such a good application for its handheld device but they didn't do that they provided the handheld operating system and the desktop operating system emira provide something that those could really be used for but but all windows c e did was allow the and build device work it didn't provide the software for doing what these g menu you know a menu is not a simple file it is data elements but all those data elements are linked together by linkages and that's why the hierarchical menu structure is very important it's a specific hierarchical menu sure after the gets transformed into another specific hierarchical menu structure it's not just transforming data if changing one computer computerized rupture into another computerized structure windows c e had and has today absolutely no capability to do anything of that nature so let's let's assume for the moment my daughter sells girl scout cookies and she's selling them out in front of the supermarket and she has she's created a database somewhere that has an inventory of a number of different categories of girl scout cookie boxes that she sells and then as people come up and buy her box of cookies that the number of boxes of each different kind of broke out that this is going down as she continues to sell more and more girl scout cookie boxes data sinking was known she was using the known data sinking but in your estimation does she have an inventive concept i don't know if she does or not but that's irrelevant to this question because that's not what she's doing is not this claim subject matter this claim such matters hierarch structures computerized structures which are transformed into a different structure for a specialized device in the board's own constructions of support that view that display ability or require that you you know want to try to answer my question whether i am trying to answer your question i don't question is is there an event of concept there in using data sinking in that way or keeping track of inventory today i would have to say no but i'm not an expert in the field i haven't looked at the prior art but they'd a sinking is not inventive now and they to seeking was not inventive then but we don't claim dataset can we can we claim particular menu structures that are more than data they are they are in a database but they are linked together by the relationships that are defined by code the data elements are linked together and then all of that is transform into some different structure that will work on a handheld device or a webpage that's not just saddam involved organizing data these claims are directed to much more than the organizing data and for shot i was just it was it was more like your daughter's girl scout example without even transmitting anything that's what they were doing there this is very different it was required to consider objective evidence and assist the citizens but it did not do not even comment the rule states that a technological invention requires an inquiry into obviousness and  into novelty and the obviousness correct but technological invention definition includes whether the patent claims are directed something that is more than a non novel and obvious invention so how can one make that determination without considering obvious yes non obvious technical advance writing i mean if you're for it then it's is you know particular way of selling cookies you know that that's not going to be enough that was a technological invention correct but we're technical as we explain in our proofs and we explained to the board but they did not consider that at all they also made an inquiry and whether or invention with a technical solution that solved technical problems yes and then we point why we think the reasoning stated today in the reasoning in our papers before the board explain why the technical feature progress satisfied for some of the same reasons a technological invention promised satisfied with regard to nexus that whole nexus argument that you heard from the other side was and from the video was argued from the first i want to feel there was nothing nothing before the p to have concerning an absence of nexus they didn't talk about it on the other side  secondary factors to be have been talked about at all so the board never considered the proverb objective evidence and rebuttal evidence thus nothing could have been there was nothing there to wash clean they didn't consider it later on so this idea that the the ultimate determination under one hundred one is the same or includes the determination for standing is wrong because it was never it was never really looked at nothing was ever gresley iran on the technological invention or on technological invention exception so there was nothing to wash away there was no washing so if we know washing clean otherwise mr franklin mischaracterized what i said before i did not say that the manual modification subject matter was conventional and i think the transcript will show that i said the man a modification in the context of the generated higher menus for particular had to be reentered separately on each handheld device if you had a handheld device let's say in your restaurant which one of the waiter used and pills were different because they are smaller streams separate in three hours of time and had to be done separately for every handheld device you actually had to physically interest in everything on however many computers you had that the waiters were going to use this was not done automatically or even in a few minutes it took hours and hours and whenever something changed in the back office menu all the handhelds were would be out of synchronisation synchronisation meaning the menu was not the same when the hand fails as it was in the  the result is to provide mean you displays on this for devices particularly claimed r and l devices of web pages which will be the same as the back office menu so that a manager of a restaurant or a manager of a pizza company that sells pizzas online can make a change in the menu in the back office and any consumer that wants order a pizza will see the right mean you at the time they fall up that mean if that's the objective and the result and it was not known at all any time before no evidence has been submitted that it was just some you know some some statements about windows c e or any other things they were allowed on the board relied on as evidence of intentionality just don't support it conventional the determination of those crimes