minutes of time for me well yes i sure can you ready to start when i'm ready to start are claims that were from the late ninety's throughout the two thousand that were examined and allowed prior to the alice doctrine this case the rejection by the examiner below under one hundred and one came in the end of two thousand sixteen and the claim amendments were expressly considered by the examiner here the issues before this court or issues that the examiner expressly considered and found the specificity of the amendments got us we have thirty five dollars amended paragraphs are excuse me thirty five paragraphs in the amended complaint the talking great detail about what i think most of us know we all know what the prior process for real estate showing was but we describe it in detail we talk about the new method in claim seven which is even the district court several times admits that it's a different method but then goes on to just find it conventional with no citation evidence so there is a there there is a substantial record that this patent was not conventional and is far different from the technology that predated it it's it's quite frankly perplexing how a district court judge on this record could not send so property manager doesn't have to go out there open the front door for because so it's just about sending information someone so that they can get enter the premises i think that's an over it was caution in alice in this court said it too it's easy to to boil any patent down to some some basic principle but here the conventional method for conducting real estate was you know the realtor and i we have to work out a time we no it would not in my view but it's a static code that's simply the same that's the same traditional method except the it wouldn't be infringing either by the way because it's a static code so it would not infringe our claims if that's considered auto entry that would be would agree if that's the point of your question that that's not apple but our client thought of though and that that would be addressing a particular circumstance where realtor maybe got delayed for some reason traffic for example i don't even know if the code of conduct would allow it by the way i would technology that would allow someone to send a code and then you're going to reprogram it that that might compatible you're getting into specific territory i mean the test is what was what was conventional you know what was the conventional method we have a new method abstract idea felt as not commit that is correct your honor and there's you know if you look at a case like n fish we put the specificity in step one we don't reached up to in this case the district court judge  found that the abstract concept is automated entry i don't have a problem with that finding in step one and i would agree that that would be an abstract idea and pursuit i would be willing to concede step one but you the specificity of the the apparatus is part of the order combination yes it's specifically called for in claim seven in combination with technology that's going to generate a durational code provided to the user and then the user goes to the site and works with a locked box it's never existed b this lock box that wears the name of that well i mean that's a piece of equipment that that seems to be completely divorced from an abstract idea did you if you look at figure twelve box ninety five it talks about the code expires in one hour you can it was so exciting i am lost i mean i really don't understand moment what are the content different kinds of embodiments of what this black box lock box is is doing when you know that claim is really directed to a problem and the problem is how do we let customers four of your brief i mean that's not what your spec says i mean i don't know if the lock box is simply something that communicates with some remote server and the most server then tells the lock box yes back code that just got punched and it's a good coach to go ahead and open the door i mean so it's more of a dummy box name thing else but the problem here is that the patent claims are directed to something else and the fact that there is a lock box reference there is nothing in the claim or the specification that tells me that this lock box is the heart of the intent of the invention  some kind of specialized dynamic lock box and that's the concern well the that's a fair question of course the answer to it in a comes back to the question that you asked judge use which is this is an overall our business is the overall not that the overall method which deviates from a conventional practice that's known as played in our complaint was renter and realtor go together and according to time in the  paradigm shift here and it is a paradigm shift is that the method is now computer generates a durational code which is given to the user after there's an authentication process the user can then go to the the lock box and enter the code i don't think the lock box once you know the idea of the lock box is not going to be something that's difficult to create however there's coronation to be between between the the server and the lock box and it i don't think i know it in the sense i mean it isn't the sense that again we have an unconventional method here and we there is no question that we know the prior method we have to change the method all that alice requires is we have specific steps that define our method the district court judge says that it covers all of automated entry but it doesn't cover all of that automated entry because i could have an app that i showed the property and i had i'm here in the realtor communicates and hits open door at the moment what's inside  which says that you receive this durational code then you go to the to the property where there's a lock box you put in a durational code it used to be a static code so lockboxes understand the code is not a big deal but you put in the durational code instead claim an apparatus this is a method claim and if they're going to claim an apparatus they better describe their claim some structure and the only structure in this we call that their brief black box it's actually in the patent white box but that is the only structure shown for it and the right it's shocking that the patent was granted after alice that the examiner instantly recognized the abstract nature of that but bought the argument that by actually eliminating part of middleman that that's you know that's what it does that's what all of these that that happens to that have been struck down under alice or you've moved with the ship go i'm not i i think that this case is actually like this court's decision and charge point almost like a year ago and it's a case that judge do more focused on when it was at the district court level in front of judge corpus and that had to do with a network for basically charging tesla's or other elect electronic cars electric cars and in the analog and that's exactly what's going on here they're trying to preempt the entire field and it's claimed in too broad a level be patentable they don't get over section one i believe you understand the rest of my argument unless i have a list you haven't from the questions and agreed it was passed wanted to pass one of three past one hundred and twelve and past one a one and specifically required at limitations so it's a specific method they enter the market and nobody even believe the method was viable and then and that's all in in the record and then ultimately after three or four years we prove the methods viable now people want to use it under alice the question is is our method specific enough and and judge chen i also want to add that more support in the record for the lock box is a column two lines fifty one dollars to sixty dollars talking about the code and how it has to receive the code but this is a this is a real invention i mean we have an examiner that looks look is look at this we pled thirty five thirty five paragraphs of complaint that talk about the conventional method the new method how it's different there's no evidence of a lock box that's ever existed like this before in combination with an overall rental method and your honor we could have a lock box patent claim but what our clients mostly concerned about is competition from people like zillow that are now starting to use this and so they are worried about the overall process and running a business based on this and all of the benefits that it produces codes you have to add in a method step that involves not the realtor putting in the code which is the traditional method but now the user putting in the code and it's a durational code in connection with a locked box there recognises durational codes it's never existed rules running on a generic computer the law is not the because you use generic components that it's on pavel the question is do we have a new useful and non obvious method that complies with section one hundred and twelve dollars it has the specificity required by want to not be a patent of the idea itself this claim means that the patent office has looked at it specifically and said that our additions meet want to one and that the rule twelve states actually be enough for us to be able to move on with the case to determine let them prove the lock boxes that read receive durational codes in combination with the rest is conventional let them prove that the conventional method compas is but at this point the case should move forward so i appreciate your