said that if i won representative claim we identified a number in the complaint and some additional ones in the twelve the six opposition brief and i would be happy to identify which ones those are but i think that the bigger issue is that the district court didn't even look at the claims that we had done of concept by improving the functioning of devices like toys and that's paragraph sixteen at the top of page one thousand four of the appendix paragraph seventeen goes on to state that the technologies claimed presented new and unique advantages over the state of the art at the time which was one thousand nine hundred eighty and that at the time of the invention of the technologies were innovative i think this presents a fairly similar circumstance to some of the court's recent opinions which post date the briefing in this case six stage of the case when you when you say the technology is not conventional you're not talking about the specific components you know i'm not your other right wing agree because it seems to me that those two cases look at very similar things in co two i won't say consistent but certainly different conclusions based upon what they're looking at in terms of one of the abstract ideas and how it's implemented certainly patent was ineligible in part because it relied on truly generic components of truly generic technological environment and that was a server that did just what servers always do a telephone that did just what telephones always do in fact the telephone was simply a source of digital images i think the telephone could just as easily have been a digital camera what we have here are combinations of components that actually lead to a new component which is the new toy a toy that for example the goose that you wind up in it walks around the table is a technological improvement because it implies communication in the field of toys so it's not taking the technology out in the step to analysis it's not saying we've got some brand new technology it's just this technology has not looking i mean if you're applying it to the new concept applying computer arbitration you could have made the same thing but it seems to me the supreme court's analysis rested on the additional things that you  with you on both of those points your honor where i would disagree would be the framing of that as as using existing technology and the just simply applying it in a new way what the allegation is and argument is that by applying that technology it actually requires particular applications that lead to a new improved toy and that reflects a practical application and one of the key differences between this case and so where you are again this is eligible at st as well as step two we are and we certainly are but it has become a little more difficult to determine whether an improvement in the field whether it be computers or toys is a step one or a step to inquiry but we're arguing that you know as in for logic about this is doing all this with these toys creates a new toy why get it in implementing the organization and coding software n t l why create a new camera microphone officer or something very very similar what's the difference between a camera with a microprocessor and a twenty with a microprocessor and i think the difference is that the camera with the microprocessor was itself a conventional  item here the toy is not a conventional toy as as was a state of the art in one thousand nine hundred eight the microphone was conventional the actuator was conventional but when you combine those components together you get a non conventional toy and that's the environment in which this alleged method processors in camera to do that in coding and the like but the court still looked at the fact that it was basically just using a computer to implement an abstract idea that that's correct and i think that that is part of the differen think there's a greater concern in cases under want to one where we're using generic computer functionality and that's not what there's a point because it doesn't i mean where does it say the claim that it's anything other than i mean you don't even describe what it is  analyzer or the actual age or are just some kind of microprocessor well the actuator is actually something that causes the physical response so it's the interface between you know detecting some property of another toys motion and then causing the second story to move to follow that first toy so that there's a good example actually of something that is not a generic computer component i think for example in t l i if you would had a classification system where the for example you classify information about where a photo was taken and then the computer moved on wheels to move itself to the location based on that classification i think that would have been a very different case it would have been something that was very different from generic computer implementation and so that's i think what we have here we have these toys performing specific physical behaviors in response to any analysis of the acoustic signals so it's not that they it's not that they have the signal in the claim just like in many of the past cases the signal in the claim does not to feed  it's the fact that it applies it to create these new toys that are more fun to play with because they have these physical behaviors and that's not generic computer functionality at least for clean ones yeah and i think some of the depending claims if you look at some of them th anything of value and i actually got all of his programming the first choice to generate a single transmitted signal the second toy to receive it and then producing a response i would agree with your honor that that would certainly present a closer case compared to for example in the same fact claim twenty three which requires that you have the toy move or toy move an appendage so for example it could be you know one of those little cat toys that you see that that moves its arm like this i think that is a much more specific implementation that would present a better case on a want to one and again this goes back in part to the fact that despite the fact that we identified a number of claims from each patent both in the complaint and the opposition the district court didn't really engage these differences and tried to look at these patents are as of a piece i would agree with you that the nine hundred three patent presents the strongest case for eligibility here because every claim is expressly limited to a toy chip where the toys have actuators and perform these physical behaviors i think some of the other claims in the five and seven patent for example claim twenty three but i'm also claim sixteen which talks about a specific implementation using a directional microphone so it does actually put some meat on the bones of what the non generic implementation is in the toy that allows it to analyze and and respond to these signals and this is not a case where we have to you know scour the specification for disclosure about what how these things are actually working you mention the analyzer the specifications do well so there is a special offer component for example at appendix page sixty seven what you see is a description of some of the equations that the my phones would actually use to detect it can be done in a couple ways one way is doppler shift and so for example a software hardware and integrated circuit perhaps that interfaces between the microphone and the actuator that i think that to the extent that there's any issue there that would be more of a one twelve issue to see if the support is there but certainly compared to other cases this court a scene where the claims per se just simply you know producing a response these claims give quite a bit of detail in one six three in the five and seven particularly about what those responses need to be and also help guide what the actuator and the analyzer would need to do if it's going to be a leader follower functionality you need to use that directional microphone to detect the sound from another toy and then move towards that toy and that's you know it is relatively simple morning's morning there are you raised a couple questions at the outset in terms of the representative claims from our standpoint i think the court should follow what happened in automated tracking here on the opposition to the mo dismiss the five exemplary claims and use the word representative but they seem to have the same effect so we think those representative for example who claims that the claims that the court can look at here to the side a list of leon the patterns you also asked about question whether they were preserving a question of fact question as a war and they cited to page one thousand and four of the appendix which is in the complaint but the only thing that's explained there is the observations about how they overcame the prior art and really observe that some elements were missing in the prior art they don't make any effort there's no allegation that there was some you know something that was not well understood that was not i don't think there's any doubt so when looking at that you course look at the complaint and look at specifications of the claims as a whole and then the specific elements here when you look at the specifications of particular it's very clear that we're dealing with wholly generic  that analyzes they have an actual waiter that has a motor a couple to it to a gauge and some kind of response it is i mean this court has said repeatedly that when you're dealing with clay why would that dysfunctional in nature that so in your view that actually are just has the additional problem of being wholly functional in nature all of these claims talk about responding sending receiving and then one of the one of the claims literally uses the words function the first function is sending the second function as receiving and that's always been a telltale sign for this court that we're talking about something that's directed to an abstract idea in this case sending receiving and responding to si actual abstract idea is so you never really get to that you know the and that's the problem with this case i mean at least i'm looking mostly at the twenty kept the clean one and one sixty three which is the most problematic for me and  stuff in it that looks an awful lot like dear to me it certainly has some kind of abstract idea within it about toys communicating with each other and responding to signals and the like but it's to twice operating in  system together in the abstract idea that maybe embedded in this somewhere improves and creates a new twenty system doesn't it if it does because of the abstract idea itself but dear it was eligible subject matter because it wasn't just the kids taking the mathematical formula and plugging it into an existing process and then saying that's it what they did there that they embedded it more deeply into the process they explained how to use the formula they explained the results that came from it and the significance of those results as it differed from what happened before the contrast why don't they do all that here they talk about two that microphones and receivers and the like they reference software and actuator that allows one to send a signal the other choice to respond to that signal in a certain way from a response i mean i know it's not very specific about the kinds of actions and things like that but i don't think it has to say you know in detail if you get this response going to your argument if you get this response right now that seems to me to be stuff a skilled artis would know how to program well so when we look at the nine six three when we're looking first to see whether it's directed toward an abstract idea and we see what the limitations are the limitations are all directed toward receiving the single analyzing the single responding to the single control having an actuator controlling the response and then providing a response so from a directed toward standpoint it's clear that the entire focus of the patent is on this idea of two devices going back and forth and communicating but and and why isn't that pattern eligible if you're the first person to come up with the notion that we have this universal twenty's out here that makes noises and even talks and things like that but nobody's ever thought of putting a receiver and in these toys and having that actually talk and respond to see instances where the abstract idea improve the environment in which it was operating we could see in automatic automated tracking our fight the being used for tracking objects improve that environment but still that was just improved the operation of a computer rather than created a new type of computer or a new type of database but why isn't toys to talk to each other a new type things that are prove they tend not to be as stark as toys that tend to be technical products but the products themselves are better products because of the addition of the idea isn't it actually most of those cases i don't recognize all the winter referencing but most of the ones on familiar with it's the computer makes the abstract idea operating weren't fish it really not abstract idea makes the computer a new computer or that in fish there are those cases right that talk about those are the easiest alice cases i think where you just have an idea and you say let's do it on a computer right and the court has been very clear that that can't be enough but those are not the only cases i mean in automatic traffic automatic tracking the claims claim at the antenna and all kinds of peripheral hardware for the tracking process which would be improved by the u s by the use of or if i closely falls into step one and i would agree if we have to put it into a box but that was a very very different case in this case because there you had a unique configuration of sensor so good so you had a original problem where you were getting in accurate data with regard to tracking moving objects relative to other moving platforms right so what that not particular configuration to yes and so they took sensors and changed the manner in which they were configured to fundamentally change the entire analysis right so there was a physical change sensors which ange in terms of how they were used and result in rather then doing  analysis of the moving object relative to the earth they did a mathematical analysis of the moving object relative to gravitational force so there you had a very specific technical problem and a very specific technical solution which  both physical and conceptual nature to it the problem is depending on how you describe these planes you can come up with the same thing here we never had hoisted could talk to each other for that specific technical problem they use a specific configuration of conventional items and program it in a way to allow them to do something that had never been done before wri reviews from three steps two steps which in the context of the invention was a big step for me right i made a more accurate as well it had many benefits and that case was really about i think the mere fact that you're using a mathematical formula doesn't take an otherwise patent will claim make it an eligible the differentiation i think to try to get to your point is when the technical problem is merely the absence of the abstract idea and the technical solution is adding the abstract idea that kind of solution has not been held up in any case that we've seen so but but if you take that logic to the extreme then it seems to me you're saying no matter how you write it's claim was denied sixty three if this is the first person that's ever come up with the idea of ways that react to each other never been done before but only you know and that's the main idea to make it an invention it's never going to be an eligible venture depending on time and context that made that maybe s right i mean there was a one use time to plot attacks because there could have been challenges associated with that that they overcame like this would be a very different case if for some reason ok we're in a toy environment where with children there are challenges associated in some way with  the manner of wireless communications in that environment they identified that challenge and they came up with a solution a technical solution to that to that technical problem that's very you know that would be eligible but  refrigerator that can send messages to your phone that says you need milk you need eggs you need orange juice why isn't that a new invention as opposed to a dumpster trader if i imagine samsung which sells that now has patent applications out there but the patent applications if properly friend are going to be associated with the technological challenges associated with that not the idea itself because if you're going to start doing that with the idea itself we're going to cars talking to stop signs had no logical challenges to that are all implemented using very conventional stop there and use a conventional refrigerator they use microprocessors and things to send  follow they probably use all kinds of sensors that are preexisting in the refrigerator get as hacked whether you have milk or orange juice or the like and the questionable way they've done is they've ordered them all in a new way to accomplish something that nobody's ever thought of in the first place i just i i mean this eligibility stuff if you start looking at it in that sense just seems to sweep a whole lot of innovation i guess my my reaction to that is if they face technical challenges in doing that they are entitle to get a patent on the solution of they came up with but if it is just going to be yes however they may phrase it quite a bit just going to ari because i'm the first one that came up with the idea that a car could communicate with a stop sign i could get a patent for that mirror preemption that's just made me entirely but the problem with your argument is i'm just claiming the idea of toys communicating with each other it has a very specific configuration of the various components and i don't know how much i mean what else could you do to claim one to make this assuming that a new toy system is eligible what else would you add to that claim sorry i'm not quite over time but what else would you add to that claim to make it i don't i think the only thing that can make something like claim one eligible is if there is a technological problem and solution this is the there is no such thing here because the only problem that they found it's not a problem it's just the idea of using an abstract idea in a different environment like to make one procedural point one substantive point my my friend on the other side mentioned the description of something as an exemplary claim and that in the context of the twelve the six motion of the fact issues i just want to point the court to appendix pages and sixty one to sixty two with two hundred forty two claims tower did its best to call out the limitations from all the claims of belief or relevant and so the bottom of ten sixty one said has grown largely overlooks the differences between the individual patents and claims and for claims the district judge did not actually consider any of the claims even the ones that the dialer did it jennifer and instead tried to find a core that was underneath all of those claims on the substantive point i think that judge who's your questions about about deer are what show something interesting about this these claims are some of the nine sixty claims are i think fairly clear on this point just like in deer and i just read the language from dear dear says that the family did not want to foreclose the use of the equation but in sending connection with the series of steps those include installing rubber and a press closing the mold constantly determining the temperature of the mold constantly recalculating the appropriate care time through the use of formula classifying data packets like that i think that is a good way to distinguish it it's this is not a generic computer case it's a case where the specific steps matter because they're tied to the toys themselves and to the modes of interactive play except that again some of your claims just don't  back to the district court's decision not to look at the patents differently i would submit that for example that united seven patent is really directed somewhat different subject matter and shouldn't have been considered you know part and parcel with the nine six report and i think the nine six three and some of the claims  five one seven of dues recite the specific physical behaviors and some of the ninety nine claims to present a much stronger case and you know if the court were to reverse on those we believe that would be appropriate but at the very least given the allegations in the complaint that this