the important audience is sitting right here waiting to forecast we'll be ready when you  problem right if you tack is just i got a piece of information about another repeat for information color and location i put them together you see the solution to a problem we have to look at the claim yes and so this is a question that i really want to make sure i understand you have a lot of claims in this product and there are lots of little dependent things here and there it did not seem to be from reading your briefs that you argued separately that some of them even if the district we agree with this report that the others were still eligible for other reasons are you basically do they all stand or fall together i would say that particularly the claims that we cite tangible physical structure casual physical machinery are distinct from the other claims but even claim it wasn't argued them separately i didn't see that really in your briefs other than maybe a small reference of your apply agree that some of these claims additional machinery but it didn't explain how that additional machinery transform the outright idea well there's nothing in the that that suggests that using that machinery for for example if we look at claim one right we have for example receiving the count of one hydraulic data reporte into the case law seems to suggest that it's are those steps conventional or well no and i agree with your honor that sometimes that seems to the analysis seems to be a one hundred to one o three analysis even when it's not said that it's not acknowledged that way but if if if i've answered that question if i might step through the different elements of quiting want to talk to you about why they're not conventional or well known and fictitious drilling engineer talk who only had a twenty five percent chance and we talked about that in a three seventy and in our prayers where if it ages nine to ten and if we look at it mobilizes reference hutchinson found  a petroleum engineer a petroleum engineer would likely have known that he states that the difficulty is is that what we have is a combination right this was a break idea a mere lots of great ideas and based on the alice test they don't need to test for patent patent eligible subject so it's not a question of whether it's a great idea  all of those cases was that they want to ace technological solution to a technological problem if i might talk to for a moment about the validating gauges step right there's in i dear making robert right that was very that was a relatively simple cake you've got a temperature sensor you've got to press you've got robert do we know which is secure or is it under the input there is the temperature that changed one substance into another right yes but doesn't seem to happen well i'm one if if you if you think about what gear sad what it did was it told you the state of the robberies idea to change your process and improve the process and in the case of the rubber tell you where the curator was doug what is your abstract idea assuming we take a contract under simple one do at all except tell you what stated it does are two different planes then further cover if it isn't in this state the drill should do this or the drill should do this or the condo if you're in the tripping state as opposed to in slips or drilling your a person of ordinary skill in the art will know that you take different countermeasures to contain the take of gas of well systems it's validated in a very specialized way we talk in the brave about how there's a large number of more than thirty different way of  particular article into a different state or thing so we argued machine transformation test into district court eighty seven forty four to have a seven forty five and here what we've done is we've taken this all data that's representative something more to me something more is an unconventional if you're going to use prior concepts and systems like computers or sensors you have to have something that is a non conventional combination the be more ideas more data handling if it's a conventional well in these claims what i view this is something more test you would look at the sensors and their computer to see if they did something in the computer arms which we don't believe they did because it will work on a general purpose processor and we don't think they had anything on the sensors that he argues because they're conventional sensors but they don't claim sensors they claim data which goes back to step count we know that from some of the cases i think you have to do something that reflected on the hardware of the computer in some sense or this database claim that young you talked about earlier i think it's much harder to show with a open a valve or were it run i saw in a way out there and open the the drill with the press and to me if at the end of their claim they said and then we went out and we shut the blowout preventer or something like that that would be like the media they don't today and it's running at this flow rate or it's not running or we're drilling today and we're doing this and they're doing that based on instruments and they are characterizing or categorizing those sensors into you could call it well state and people a describe what's in the field people have been able to measure temperature and pressure for a pretty long time but these claims are all about data i mean my view is it's storing data it's it's comparing data and then it's concept to me is fairly well explained i don't think counsel ever explained in answer the planet being go below or on appeal which to me isn't a very analogous case because there are very high level claims that one can do with a pencil and paper and accuracy they don't claim real time they don't claim depth of the well meaning of the arguments in their briefs or unclaimed features from the embodiments and i just don't think that's proper analysis in a one on one case there's much operations it monitors all this data and tells you how people drill those flow charts about how people pick states i would think most drawn engineers could generate those flow charts fairly easily based on their nohow of being in the in the oil and gas industry so it's not like they came up with a new algorithm other than it's their particular categorization of that data which they apply to interpret the measurements while they are on this measurement issue i think one important case that you could consider that is discussed in and many of them is parking fluke which had temperatures coming in and pressures and flows coming in from a chemical catalytic reaction so you had real measurements and then you did a calculation for these don't alarm limits and then you modify them that claim was much closer to tie to actual measurements whereas here we are systems and the data can come from any system if you read the spec it's very broad about the sensors and the systems it doesn't necessarily have to be in real time you could collect all this data and run their algorithm or program idea back in the office if you wanted to calculate the well states in hindsight on the issue of is there something more i think that the important thing is look at the claims there really isn't we have a conventional computer processor in the spec that's what they say can do it and if you can do this on a general purpose processor it's really not a limitation and the case was pretty clear on that i think there's the ordered combination analysis that alice does which show here there's nothing unconventional happening when you program here that the the algorithm or the abstract idea there's really nothing more there than sensors an ordinary computer and a machine or transformation test below they argue that it was tied to a system that was the thrust of their argument on their brief they argue that it transformed the data and in their reply brief they are arguing that the machine side of i don't think they need it on either side task because i don't think reading data and using a lookup table with preexisting data is transforming data i don't think that's what the transformation test is meant to cover it's more of a chemist use the rubber example that's a good example of something changing and being transformed and i don't think it's tied to an apparatus because the sensors are not in the claims th preemption they've raised is not an issue area osa i think finally said the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility so it's not really it's and it's a factor to touched on it doesn't seem to be controlling at all activity back in the one nine hundred seventy s was just in consequential it's not really the something more you're looking for in a case like this i think i covered most of the points i wanted to make in light of the fact that thank you want to this really is a case of first impression in the post dallas world because none of the cases have involved a specific technical improvement to an existing technological process right if we look at what happens in the claims of this patent we are taking data that's recited specific sixteen wells states is known the idea of getting to them as we can see in figure five five be it pages eight thirty eight and eight thirty nine that is is his invention that is what to stick sensors were not having the job those are existing since they are what we're harnessing the middle way that they haven't been used before right and we're validating there's nothing in the record that says validated by testing against the limit it when we talked in the brief about the patent itself cites seventeen different ways of validating data and we say we claim this way and the equivalents of course we claim this way and this gets us to results tom driller the fictitious driller he got up there and he supposedly looked this is mobilizing this fictitious tone griller and he said i can tell you what the well state is but he was he was only right twenty five percent of the time  so what we've got is a specific technological solution to a specific technological problem that is far closer to diamond either than it is to