the court rejected consideration technological improvements over conventional locates as irrelevant he cited a single case a district court case that was later overturned us the can't claim constructions that were advocated in the district court were plain and ordinary meaning there is no basis for the court's finding to equating geographical coordinates of a two to four inch paint mark on the ground with the address of the location that is not a position that we have to cater for work i don't believe anyone advocating for that is clearly with that construction that's clearly fair game the same is true with the other two constructions th essential what we have is a later decision by the district court refining the constructions in some cases in others contradicting them they have become la they've become something that we was not appealed from and they are constructions i think we're all bound by will they not been challenged by s and m and we have many cases that hold that claims are not nos as wax to be distorted depending on the purpose so whether we're talking about infringement or invalidity and ethical conduct the claims have to mean the same thing the latest most complete word from the court and what the s are the three essential limitations asked the court said we're required to use that language repeatedly in the trial order and i think that's what we have to follow and that's what we have to apply and that shows in fact why the constructions and the one on one face were wrong i could go on and that but i think that encapsulates it so you're saying there's some kind of technological improvement here and i guess the question my mind is why can't the claim be understood as performing an all preexisting abstract process using a computer as a tool to help carry out that abstract process in the same way that you know for example alice supreme court found that ok there's some super powerful computer in that claim that's going to be and doing the intermediate settlement of a lot of currency exchange transactions throughout the day and making sure that they're done securely why isn't this your claim similar in the sense that yes there's a computer involved you know for receiving data manipulating the data to create a final end product that describes in the pics  locate operation but in the end it's just merely using conventional technology as a tool to carry out the abstract process i think this case is far more like the famous case recently decided in that we have conventional elements but they're put together in a new way what the court did here is fail to be took each element individually and said that's conventional the court failed to consider the unique combination of the elements and that is the fundamental part of the invention now you ask you say well aren't isn't this all in the article four and the answer is no we know that the closest prior art was the hand art at least to take the judge's view and one t one we don't believe those cases but the belief that art did not include the steps that are part of the claims so you have to look at the new steps and say these are included in the prior art therefore it's not just a computerization of it the next observation i would make is very close as prior art which was advocated by us and accepted by the court him to trial findings was computerized prior computerized locate prior art and the court found that on examination the claims in question were patently distinct from that closers prior art in other words they didn't just take a general computer and and take what was in the art before it changes the court said you are is different it is an improvement at least in three key ways the first was the ability to actually locate with the geographical coordinates the paint marks that are on the ground the two to locate operation document and that but it was already conventional include all kinds of descriptive information about the locate operation and now you've included another type of descriptive information so i guess we're talking about latitude and longitude coordinates so you know other types of corners ok but you know calculating latitude and l coordinates and done long before the invention of the g p s i guess what i'm saying is you know we already knew the idea of including a property address and the name of the locate technician and the date and other supplemental information to describe the locate operation and now you know there's an additional little piece of information the latitude and longitude coordinates you're adding to that final document i guess i wonder why is an extra type of information that's in the same category as the described being located operation create an inventive concept well the trial court has found that that is an event that is novel over the closest prior art which i think we have that is i don't when you go so far as to say the trial for it found it was an inventive concept if the trial court characterizing accept that but the court found that the claims were not invalid under one of three or one of two over the prior art they are different but all that means is the prior art doesn't have this stuff in it but if the prior art is completely invalid to the fact that you add more invalid if this doesn't make your pattern eligible operate it shows that there are additional steps that were not in the prior art so we're not merely seems to be not very helpful play pretty thinking well the the court completely ignored the fact that these were technological improvements over the prior refused to credit them and the reason displayed aerial image adding at least one digital representation of one physical ok mark in other words the two to four inch paint mark on the ground that had not been done before that we could end as innovation included w taken and found a means to locate a two to four inch paint mark which is important for liability and other purposes to document the well what's more when so the what we're what we are looking for a to forn mark well that's a cartoon essentially and it doesn't allow you the end of the invention and the improvement is to be able to recreate the locate after the marks have been destroyed after they've been dug for after gas explosion so the entire innovation here is to be able to effectively recreate where the marks were place you know photographed in the same thing a photograph would not do the same thing and the reason is that it is a question of angle of perspective and many difficulties with that there is no geo encoding there's no way to find the coordinates of the paint marks themselves from a decision he did not take the claims as a whole and isolation he looked at each one and he did look at the net effect do you not i mean we have to talk about the language so we have to talk about them separately so we're going to go through each of them and we're going to say does this have any eligibility does it add to the level of political right if they're all just adding information to a match and we start from the premise that putting information on the matter is not eligible idea into the matter how many of them you put together or how many different steps or how you combine and it's all just putting information on the map it's new information showing fails it was just getting the information it could be the newest because after they finish all their work they want to go get a beer that's new information i bet nobody's ever put that kind of information about but that can't make it and part of the eligible concept can it i would agree with your honor but this is not just information a map i that is the characterization i have a problem with it doesn't include electronically searching having a searchable file within for the information that's very important that's not putting information on a map and during the topic of geographic or how this relates to what has been done before we know what has been done before is that it was done by hand the press figure that is in the here is the generation of a better located operation record a more precise more accurate number than before using digital photo technology and g then why isn't that an application of pre existing technology for a new good use well i think it's  ordering or or relationship between the hardware components it's using generic hardware and software to document a locate operation something that had always been done by h as scientifically precise as you could possibly get it thanks to these geographical coordinates thanks to the markup of the digital photo why isn't why can't we look at the claim now is yes perhaps because you can do something you might be able to do something more precisely with a computer than you could do it by hand does it make it patentable because you can search better a document that's electronic and created by computers doesn't make it pa e as as they say you know these patents are essentially about electronic record keeping the record is what happened to locate operation where the marks were placed who did the date it was done this kind of detail it was all done by the testimony here as to how they came up with this invention is the c e o of their company was doing a run and he was wearing a garmin watch and he realised that the government watch was tracking his one longitude and latitude as you ran along in felt well we can use that to document locate operations to more precisely note where the pit marks are on the ground they didn't invent that that's not patentable ok what else else made the point that electronic record keeping is one of the basic functions most basic functions of computers and that's at one thirty four supreme court at twenty five thirty nine electronic record keeping that's what these patents are about there isn't there they don't improve the performance of a computer they don't require any  any at all special hardware or software the statements about the open ended statements about the in a specification about first all the things don't say anything about how to how to perform these methods or how to make these systems they just include functional limitations in generic references to to hardware software there's for example electronically receiving electronically transmitting a communications interface a display device a processing unit electronically receiving combining the electronically received image with an image related information displaying honored display device at least one digital image this is as generic as it gets in the specification they emphasized that they are not limited to any hardware or software or any arrangement of hardware and software here are some statements from the communication this is about some hardware the communication interface three seventy may include any transceiver like mechanism that enable user device to tend to communicate with other devices for systems that's run the tool for patent appendix two thirty three that's also found in its three five one patent same language and appendix two seventy five is fun of the three four appeal and this is what judge davis said on that very point talking about this all over geographic this is a appendix seventy six a low geographic coordinates corresponding to the physical locate marks might differ in detail from a sketch identifying the approximate location to locate marks such information is not different kind and he went on to say that doesn't transform an invention precisely recorded where they they made the marks they could taking a picture and they did take pictures of what they did how is that not a record and all these people have done is there they're  attempting to patent doing this electronically with a computer making electronic record of what had been done by people here for now you know the specification says it will be in this is in all five patterns it will be apparent that aspect as described above may be implemented in many different forms of software from where and hardware in the implementation is illustrated in the figures the actual software code or specialized control hardware used to implement these aspects is not limiting of the descriptions provided here in bus the operation of behavior of the aspects were described without reference to the specific software code it being understood that software and control hardware can be designed to implement the aspects based on the scripts inherent that's from the tool for patent appendix to forty one and it appears in all five patterns as well so what they're saying here when they say we're not limited to the hardware and software any particular one in it's understood that you can choose or design hardware that will lose you could write software that will do this and what they're saying is we own it if you do that that's that's the definition of preemption there preempting somebody making electronic record of a look at operation that's what they're trying to do now they're saying well we'll be more precise look at operator can be very precise in the field and being more precise doesn't make a patentable being more precise as you can with conventional known tools doesn't make it palatable and that's what they've done here that's what was found below what they're trying to do now on appeal is claim that the inequitable conduct trial produced evidence and purported claim constructions which they think calls for a different look on an equitable  all extrinsic of course should result in a different answer and on patton ability and the court said absolutely not we don't find anything that that none of the evidence at  conduct trial changes the result patentability the court said as follows this is an appendix one twenty sort of view has not demonstrated that reconsideration is warranted on the grounds that the subsequent bench trial in this case produced evidence that was substantially different from the evidence available at the time a court the they talk about three essential claim limitations one that are now required in the claims first being a high resolution manifest constructed from high resolution base image and they say this is required by all the constructed from a high resolution base image their site for that they got a long string say the first site is an accurate say it puts the court as follows a saying this generally input images may be they do put that and then they want you to but but they say that that's that supports the proposition that high resolution is what's required it's just not support all the rest of the sites in the string so if you're in the bottom of thirty three and almost all of citations to trial the evidence to expert witnesses talking you know all extrinsic and again we know that the one to one analysis is claim centric it starts with claims but this notion that they put forth about using that technology to collect record and electronically store that information even if they're wrong when they see the court we construe the claims in this way it's not supported in the record at all but even if they were right even if the court even if you if this court wanted to was of a mind to read in the claims these limitations that they now argue it still wouldn't change the result the difference between high resolution manifest and a manifest with sufficient resolution that's not inventive concept they didn't invent high resolution anything on the search ability of the record they are now arguing that with the court said is based on what the courts at the trial or that the search ability must be you must be able to search to look for in the electronic record search by where is the locate mark located so you can have vision a look at electronic tracking with fields and there might be a field for the location of the locate marks they say you have to give the search ability of the record must be that precise no the things don't say anything about that the judge didn't say that's necessary and at the trial level they argue corners and trying futures and term exactly where it is well that's a map of an underground facility this is a electronic manifest of a locate operation done for different purposes and it has  inventive concept in doing that before these marks are not put to scale they were not put in a way that you could reproduce them but recreate them they were searchable electronic records and were aerial images they weren't adding