where computer information processing techniques can be combined with biological and genetic information to detect and diagnose certain conditions such efforts go to a future of personalized medicine where genetic and biological information will d be used to tailor medicine to a specific patient in the st application issue from case number one thousand and twelve dollars claim one requires collection of a specific set of data and calculation of an intermediate value the inherit which include electric power mainly and a few others this seems like it's a pyrrhic data analysis uses the same terms of receiving inputting and that that's just  of the kind of claims that we have previously said don't pass muster collecting data analyzing data displaying data this is electric power s a p and tell me why this is different from keith factor here is this is not existing data this is data that had to be created with additional steps the inventors came up with to say they collect a certain amount of data the genotype data and then that and then they take that counsel but at the end of the day don't you still have a situation where you're you're you're you have data you're collect all the data you merge or analyze the two sets of data together and then you publish the result which is data you don't get out of the the realm this abstract realm of data manipulation your honor i think the difference there is we're not just be generated related to that downloadable so that's just collecting data and analyzing the data and then that data be shared st they'd be linked and then that data be shared so that didn't really even have the latest steps we do and i think judge pro smith said electric power that case was very very broad they were basically claiming the result there were no specifics and here are much more like micro we have a set of rules  fact not just the genus of rules like micro had but very specific rules narrowing down that particular mathematical model the hidden markoff model that must be used and not only that but specifying that must have the six particular states and things mental steps so i think given the complexity of the genetic data there are too many data points for this to be done in a person's mind or even manually on paper data this was solving a problem with errors in the underlying data and it comes up with a mathematical model that they use and then iterative process and it tracks very well with the it did through the software which is exactly what we're doing here we're improving the field of determining haplotype phase by correcting errors in the underlying data and creating new more accurate data just like me for road created more accurate and they use a particular date of the the parameters that are used and that is the field that's being improve the technological field is genetics and the ability to accurately determine or predict council what do you mean by an improved data structure we don't believe that is however if you look back to the end fish case the improvement in the date database data structure was that it was self referential and we have a very similar situation here in the  technology that was being improved was the database structure that's what the claim was directed to and they found that this self referential database was different than existing databases so it allows the computer to operate more efficiently more determine if that value is accurate or not and keeps refining the value in this iterative process including using the new data it created to help fight against the errors in the underlying data so that's an improvement in the data structure that like the improved data structure in n fish improved the operation of the computer particularly in processing databases this improve the operation of the computer in processing that heavily to the cells direct case in which the district court found that the coins were directed to the underlying natural law that patent sites can survive multiple free cycles but this court reversed that finding that the planes were instead directed to an application for processing here we think the board look and use the patent office guidelines a sort of a checklist they have a list where they go through it there i believe it's prong one and they look and see are there any abstract ideas within the here the patent office looked and said well the claim has a hidden mark off model as a mathematical concept therefore it involves mathematics but they never went further determined is the claim actually directed to that s equation but instead sought only to foreclose for others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their process and so here we believe the board actually can see the director that our claims would not preempt use of a hidden mark off model they would not preempt the ability to approximate or predict haplotype phase and they wouldn't even print that preempt the combination of using a hidden mark off model mathematical model they do not preempt the use of a mathematical model they only preempt following all of the individual steps in the claim next era we believe the board looking at those looking at those individual steps that you're talking about and claim claim one being represented i guess this is the  those limitations include the source of the data and how it's being used and manipulated so i think here the source of the data in claim one was key in being able to address the errors in the underlying genotype  e i'm sorry due to tight data when you look at the other cases that we cite to they were similarly receiving data so if you just you know in fincham it was receiving a downloadable well if you take out the receiving the processing in the extracting steps from finch and there's nothing left in the claim here we think you cannot generalize those steps into that high level of sort of computer input output steps you and eighty eight case i think you know there's definitely receiving storing processing in extracting steps but there's also this machine learning aspect and when you get to claim thirty two dollars even more detail on the particular parameters of the hidden mark off model and using a training set of data so those are additional steps the only evidence on the record is those are unconventional steps and the directors argument is that they're conventional when you generalize them down to receiving storing extract data but there's no argument that the actual details steps of collecting the particular data and using it in this machine learning recursive process is conventional and i remark and correctly found that the claimed haplotype saving methods in both applications are patent and eligible at step one the board can correctly found that the claims of both applications as a whole are directed to the abstract is also statistical concept also falling within the category of mathematical operations so appellant here is emphasizing the need to her the claims requirement for very specific narrow inputs into these mass down they don't believe that this judge right what's your response to your opponent argument that these claims contain specific rules that are applied in the specific manner to achieve a specific ritual yes your honor so st i think they're arguing with respect to their specific rules and they create a specific result boils down to their argument that creating new data supplies the eligibility and there's just simply no support for the idea that just creating data alone is enough that i mean that is what math does it creates new data and here unlike the claim or unlike the cases that they've cited  fashion fin gen they don't use that data to improve anything outside of the abstract idea itself so any improvement is within increased accuracy of the math so increased improvement or itself was improved and singe and it was a new security file that improved computer functionality so the improvement was to something outside of the abstract idea and instead here in stead can proving the computer they're just using as a computer as a tool to improve the math itself so i think there's two points there one just creating data alone is not enough mathematical operations so as a whole the board correctly concluded that the claims as a whole are directed to the abstract idea of mathematical operations and then moving on to step additional elements are directed to receiving storing and displaying of information and these additional limitations if you'd both separately and together are just conventional generic computer functions and just don't take the claims outside the methods could be used so they still are tying up these building blocks of statistical analysis and that's why in principle you know we don't allow patenting just basic mathematical algorithms and there's no eligibility exception because the narrowness of the abstract idea the supreme court in my mayo noted that you know narrow math is still abstract there's no line of how narrow math can be before that it that catapult into an eligible application and mayo noted the fook case where there was very new math it was a very narrow math that calculated an alarm limit and that itself was ineligible because the entire claim was directed just to the mathematical concept and appellants here despite our briefing focusing on the flaws case and the board mentioning the full case has fail to really distinguish that case which i think is notable so unless runners have any questions i'm happy to see the rest of my time i'm just pointing out that we had asked the court to firm divorce the terminations the claims and both appeals are directed to patten eligible ineligible subject matter under one at one hearing no questions thank you thank you the distinction that they made in gear was that they were not preempting use of this a radius equation a known mathematical model they were only preempting following all of the methods steps here and so in that case the court determined the claim was not directed to that mathematical model unlike in fluke where the court determined that it was basically automating existing processes and was trying to claim the mathematical equation in that case here there is preemption but it's very very narrow we disagree that it would actually preamp use of a hidden mark off model in determining haplotype phase it would only preempt the use in the st case of a hidden mark off model with these particular six hidden states combined with these two additional data sources and would not preempt the use of the hidden mark off model in general to determine haplotype phase and  the nd case there's even more detail so the preemption is even narrower the nd point we'd like to make is that the alice test needs to apply equally to all cases and there's been talk of you know whether our case is closer to mayo we think it's closer to any fish but we feel the board discounted all the computer cases that we cited the growth engine k p and fish because they were computer cases and not bioinfor for natural science cases but the alice test applies equally to all when you look at ms rowe the result of necro was improved animation data in finch and the result was improve security data file a computer file in k p n it was improved check data and the k p n court noted that it was not necessary to even claim an application of that data that it was known in the art that improved it check data was useful and here it's very well known in the genetics feel that improved haplotype data will be extremely useful as we move towards personalized medicine in the bascom case the court initially found that method there was abstract but under alice step two said the additional steps were enough to change it and those were traditional computer steps this was a filtering data over the internet case so here we think when you look to the actual cases we cite they are all about processing data and the key differentiator between the cases we cite and the digit tech essay content extraction cases are that those were just manipulating existing data and not improving anything their sort of statistical analysis of you know where things where financial data would be would lie or it's an illustration of that data whereas here we're actually we would guess that a value and use our parameters to refine that value but it's an iterative process and it can not only produce better data for the person you're trying to determine the haplotype phase four but because of this machine learning recursive process it will go back and refine the data for other people so we believe these additional even if the court finds that this is abstracted step one these additional steps have to be considered in their entirety not just receiving what data are you receiving it's the the selection that the entire inventors came up with of what data will fix the problem and then processing that data to come up with a new more accurate haplotype phase so we believe that we request that the court reversed both the rulings in this case thank you we thank both sides and both cases