morning your honor sir may please the court the district court ignored specific claim limitations directed to a specially designed machine and a series of method steps that allow a referee to monitor and in force rules for dark competition between players in remote locations from the referee or from each other that was a task that was not possible with the existing dart machines prior to the technological advancements made in the only three patent as a result the district court erred in the following ways over simplified the claims improperly determined facts against the non movement in this isn't a motion to dismiss there was no fact discovery there hasn't even been an answer filed in the case he improperly concluded that you sort of claims do not recite something more than a mere abstract idea and improperly concluded that you sort of claims are directed to an abstract  idea looking at the facts that that the district court under alice whether a claimed element or combination of elements is well understood routine and conventional to a skilled artisan is a question of fa  concluded that the process of remotely refereeing a game by collecting information analyzing the information in displaying results are routinely employed in other areas including professional hockey baseball and football at appendix eleven machines that have play components those are those are those are old i don't i don't contest those are all those are simply the parts the board the area around the board on machine means to capture multimedia information relating to to conduct of play and performance of players using one of more dart machines those are the sensors that are on dart shoes those are used in the conventional way what's not here is at least one camera to capture the conduct of play that is unique it's not been done before allows it to to do certain things in variety of lights and in a dark you know bar you know if you invent that filter we did not stop now but we don't have to invent the components what we have to do is if the combination of components that we use are inventive then then those are unique components so this the federal circuit has repeatedly issued had rule that patents that use conventional components and combine them in a unique way that's a patentable subject matter of a standard computer running software the wide majority of the cases that you find ineligible include the use of a just a general purpose computer running running software sure it's the electorate we've also done computer computers with camera i think is t l i i mean so it's not limited to abstract idea on a computer it's abstract idea why routine conventional equipment right and in i'll use the alice case there was no dispute that intermediate negotiation was a well known well understood routine function that was known for centuries there was no evidence in which case you thought that idea of there being a negotiation was an abstract idea and the only way to they tried to make a pothole was just with that abstract idea on a computer isn't that your problem here too is you're trying to put the abstract idea of scoring monitoring and particular cameras particular devices on a on a dart machine that weren't used previously to allow and providing that information to a remote refereeing center providing both the conduct of play and the multimedia information to a remote center which would allow a referee to remotely inforce the rules of there is no evidence that remote refereeing itself is a longstanding routine act that has occurred and there's there's think the idea of remote refereeing is patent eligible i think that the man who went by the claim that says i claim a system for refereeing any type of spore where and there's conventional equipment at this work site that is used to transmit information to a third site or second site where the referee sets and can make decisions is that a patent ball eligible idea under alice not if you don't if you don't use specific or unique combinations of elements to get it there if all you've done like you've done in electric  internet to a second site where the referee sets i don't think you could get that in our claims don't cover that our claims are not written to cover all forms of remote referee ok i would i would i would say that it depends on it depends in your hypothetical on whether there was some unique way in which the devices were used plans are and then you have a bunch of conventional equipment to allow that to happen but we disagree that it's conventional there is a dirty sheet that has a camera that can that captures the conduct the place where it's us agree that all the equipment you're using is conventional i guess you're just arguing you've organized it and conventional manner i don't think the camera itself is conventional it's got to  is a camera for capturing the conduct of play and that means something when you read the specification capturing the conduct the play what all the prior art in this case did was you had a camera that was an instant camera that took a picture of the player as a reward when he won the game there was nothing done before with a camera that captured the player the surroundings the dart board and provided and capture all of the sensor information to show where the dart was where it hit where it was on the on the device and then capture the conduct of play from beginning to end if you read this back it says you're going to capture everything there and the whole purpose of this the whole purpose of this is to prevent is to allow refereeing in a remote location that captures  infringements of all the rules if you only have a camera focused on the player you miss the the boundaries you miss whether he's stepping over you miss whether somebody is close to the dart board and cheating and touching a dart there that's what it was designed  play it is it is incorporated into the dart machine in a manner that captures all that and include special filter and i know you're on to argue that it's not the claim but it's in the specification indicates that you can use a special filter to capture capture the images in all the lighting areas so so the combination of i guess what we're arguing about you want to say every single element there is conventional we don't think it is in the claimed element because what what else isn't conventional is the transmission of both the camera images captured and the multimedia nothing before has ever done even the n f l and the and the baseball example and the hockey see it in different various light sources but that but i'll go back to the idea that you can't ignore the elements of the dark machine and the requirements for how the information is collected because it's collective differently than it was done in the past and you can't just say all this is a collective in the past there was no cameras collecting the entire there was nobody there was no cameras that were collecting the so the combination of the camera and the multimedia information being sent to the remote location is new it has been done before i said i'm into my rebuttal an abstract idea and then at the second step we look to the score look first to the specification and found in the specification that there was at least a purported event of concept we don't have that here are the specification here as well i guess what your friend is arguing is that the invented concept is nobody has ever come up with this particular combination of a dark or a computer or the internet and a camera  board with a camera was was discussed as as being in the prior art and while the prior art is not great but it's it's it's looking to me that this already existed there were dark boards that were interconnected with a network whether or not connecting dark boards or a new way of connecting to dart boards with a remote referee this is the specification is directed toward this idea of a remote referee and i think that's clear from the specification when it says that this is really the the problem that's being solved is this remote buffering problem it and frankly that when you look at the claims that's clear the idea is to the claims and then at the district court  machinery or technology that is involved there and balco it may be true that's true and then it went on to say the court went on but those are already invented cameras and so forth and yes that's true those are  don't need to find the out of bounds of an abstract idea and i feel like that's the same place here is that this is this is so abstract we often talk about something that's done within the human mind and refereeing is exactly that whether it's remote refereeing and the referee here is contemplated as being a human whether that's a remote referee or a referee on the on the football field right it's collecting information what's going on the play an or analyzing that information and then displaying the referee's decision whether you throw a flag or whether it's a foot fall in a dark game there's that's the abstract idea and then we we move to step two of the purported event of concept as and there's no technological solution and even if there war it's not included in the claims and that and it's always on her camera that there is a purported solution that and the score looked at the claims and some claim survive some did not based upon whether or not that purported solution was incorporated claims of a little over three minutes thank you your honor i will go to what you were recently discussing this case is not electric power this is the claims in this case are not so broad as to cover as the court in electric power said they will monopolize every potential solution to the problem i e any way of effectively monitoring will worsen the power grid our claims are much narrower they require specific machine a specific dart machine to be used in both the system claim and in the method claimed and that system and method and those that reference to the dark machines has specific elements that must be included it can't apply to football it can't apply to hockey it can't apply to any other sport but darts and it is only one way of doing remote referee there are other ways out there it is not limiting it and i would i would cite you to a quote from research corporation technologies versus microsoft six twenty seven f s the third thirty eight fifty nine and of course talking about it is indeed this court notes that inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the patent act that's what we did we improved a dart machine so that you could do some remote refereeing this is a dart machine that's in the marketplace we made an improvement to it in the marketplace so so we think it's man abstract with respect to the judge relying on his own personal knowledge about football hockey games and  baseball and using that to say remote refereeing is well understood there was no evidence supporting that there was no agreement on that that was his own personal information they relied on and what's missing from that is we don't know how they do it in the n f l we don't know when they started doing it we don't know what information they get there is nothing in there but the judge  equating this and to what's going on in some different sport and saying therefore it's it's well known routine well understood but one thing that's important to note about both all of the football baseball and hockey examples he gave is none of those remove the need to have a referee at the competition in each of those cases you have to have a referee at a competition there's eight referees saying in the in the i believe in the beginning of the pattern there is some reference to one of the purposes of the patent is to avoid having referees being present it's not in the claim but it's the basis for why the invention was created and what it was