invented a way of hubli shane's information personal web pages on the internet that transformed the way that publishing actually takes place in the past there were two ways he says to do it in the pack and everyone agrees with that the two ways work you have your own technology your own competence in publishing whether we're going to hire somebody to do that was it what mr cutting now did was he took the technology that existed at the time that conveyed information such as telephones for example fax machines e mail and he tried herd of those into web publishing tools he did that into wept he used the format of the masses the format of what was coming in by the fact machine he now are full of phone up to do two things one is to convert it up certain part of what is going on here but what the invention is about is about taking what didn't exist before which is in a way of publishing on the web and taking tools that were never used in that way it's towards accomplishing that and in fact it's one of the specific ways that that's done what's done is to then take to take what's coming in say from the email or whatever happens if that's the preferred not even those examples and give it up and then to figure out ok who's that coming from and then convert all the technology in the past the conversion technology that that twitter says was conventional was not conventionally used for publishing on the hello phones were fax machines weren't there's no evidence of that in the record and the conversion software as well was used to convert say from one image format to another but it wasn't conventional at the time remember  back to the ninety's now the late ninety's that he wasn't conventional to use any of that to convert and put things on the web yes individuals could use suites of technology and suites of software well certainly and i agree that the this court's precedent is that if all you're doing is taking conventional computer means control computer pieces and just moving information back and forth and that's all that's being done breathed and under this court's precedent there's analysable but that is not at all what is going on here what we're what we're doing is is changing in fact using a particular rule similar to say  i understand the question is opposed to just format in general because that there are two different things going on here one is what does the word format mean and then what are off first and second formats individually first and second are not part of the district court's  yes conversion does take place in the patent based on that and one circumstance but there's also conversion from say an e mail where you're not converting the image file formats and you're taking the weight of sending information in other words an e mail wrapper or e mail packaging and putting it in web packaging which is how that is served up and said up for people to look at we need to also understand the format plays a very very fundamental role in the identification identification or think occasion based on whether something's a j pad or jeff or any other kind of image format that's not done for example and it's done based on the tramp the transfer back or so is it an different from the email so it has to include if you're going to include the preferred environment in the clintons in the meaning of format we have to integrate having an email be different from a fax and so when you turn to the infringement and what twitter is doing what twitter does is it has three different ways three different formats of sending the message it has its web form where you type in a password and then a cookie assigned and  cookie is part of that wrapper it's called an h t t p post but there's a specific field for the web that has a cookie if you're using their mobile app and this is all two thousand and thirteen technologies that's when this was done so i don't know i think that might be able to differ but that's what we're talking about in the mobile app it's off and that's actually the secure token that is used and it's a totally different feel and with the text messaging which is the third option that they use they use a number system their i'm sorry phone number system where that information is sent into in totally different fields so if we take seriously what the district court and twitter believes is the definition of why twitter infringes and our expert explains that those different headers make them different formats under our construction and that's an issue for the jury to decide under what we believe is the correct construction i can move on to the questions and that i can move on to the central processor as well which is the other clean construction issue that is important here and that is the central processor in the patent really means computer for more computers and the reason it was to come out to put this specification together himself many years ago so the record shows he used this term central processor he saw it in many patent sites and he used that consistently throughout th specification as a central as a computer or more than one computer and he explicitly says that as well what the district court did in this particular circumstance was try to read something into the this is it page seventy nine of the appendix by explaining that while bo bo described a system pursuant to which users could use fax machines or telephones to send messages to be published and to appear on the internet that bobo did not provide a security scheme associated with those messages and so it would be impossible for example for an authorized users of the system to use it to put messages in somebod consistently then with that explanation the reason for allowance for each of the patents at issue was a security scheme that tied the identification mechanism to the format of the message and in the specification it explains that facts image and text each have preferred file formats associated with them and explicitly distinguishes the format of the message that is it issue from such things as headers packet data and data descriptors which are described as being there for other than the format of the next the consequence of easy webster's definition of format is  including different authentic kishen mechanism for example and ooc token versus a cookie as part of the information that is transmitted along with the message means that the format of the message is therefore different easy web is not identified any difference in the encoding that is applied to messages that are sent from the out versus messages that are sent from the web that the way that you determine who someone is is a function of the former that is an idea that could be implemented by asking someone who calls into a system to voice identify themselves and asking someone who sends a letter into a system to perform conventional articles that are described as such in the specification is a case we think most likely a lie where the idea here the allegedly inventive idea is this abstract concept and what we have are then generic components that allow that idea to be implemented in the context of the internet how are the one one thing i am struggling with in your abstract idea analysis as well as in the lower courts have  abstract idea but here while the novelty of the claim potentially is argued to be the authentications the claim is actually about conversion and publication so i feel like you have extracted a single element from a multi element clean and said aha there's an abstract idea in here somewhere not just this needs the alice test most of the other cases the whole claim is characterized in a way that reflects the abstract idea so can you help me understand because you see my problem my problem is that you could narrow down any claim to a single element and then describe it in an abstract way and that would then every claim would automatically is my problem so help me figure out how to work through what you're saying i understand the fritz concerned and that the court must look at the claim as a whole and i would say this is very similar to t l i until i there were elements of the claim that were directed for example to having a telephone unit and having messages be sent into the system via the telephone unit with the photographs then being characterized based on identifying information the court nevertheless found that that was that the clean as a full was directed to an abstract idea because the core of the claim was this categorization and then there were routine known elements but physical elements like having the telephone unit that well so i don't think that the physical elements distract detract from the concept of the abstract idea because the abstract idea is the idea that's being effectuated when these physical elements but what and so that's why i don't think this is like to live what i at maybe your argument should be some should hasn't been too abstract ideas doesn't save it from being abstract i don't know you know the fact that there are three different potential you know there's  te convert and publish clearly three major components to this claim and would like to sum it all up in terms of just one and that doesn't it's not sitting well for me with the abstract idea notion because every other case that i've encountered the abstract idea articulate is the abstraction that is the entire message beaten performed and you seem i'm just really worried i mean the supreme court cautioned us against narrowing it down to a single element and doing it that way because then everything would be abstract and i do think that's true i understand i would say until why there was a requirement also of receiving information that the information be sent to the system where it would then be classified so one could look at the claiman asian then there's a totally totally different conversion process that takes place which is independent of authentication and has no relevance to what and then there's the publication step which likewise you can certainly authenticate and you can convert without ever publishing and feel like you can't have a prize without receiving the information it's all connected until i as a single entity and that's why it makes sense that it's a single ombre all abstract idea i'm just struck only with how do i articulate the abstract idea and as i said before maybe there are two or three but i i think i would suggest here that the authentic haitian is and is sort of bound up with publishing it is authentic usually for the purpose of publishing that is the reason that you are think as in feel like there are different concepts but i think here are these our concepts are linked and when we look at the claim that there's no detail there's no specificity there's no nothing technological that is set forth in the claim with respect to  conversion or publication what is set forth in the claim with specificity is this either means for identifying or identifying step that relates to the security scheme i also think under this court's precedent the court can look to what the specifications set forth as being the novel teacher of the invention which in the distinction over bobo is described as being in this security scheme to him but this is like it's almost as though you want to return me to the world of the just your heart of the invention pre nine hundred fifty two and use that as he faces through validating claims i mean the legislature said that's no good you know seventy years ago i don't i'm really not comfortable with the idea that i should extract from the claimed the most novel element and then decide whether that abstract or not that that makes me feel very uncomfortable as a rule of law i understand but i would suggest that it is permissible to look to the specification to understand the invention that is being claimed for purposes of the one to one analysis i do want to make sure that i have time to address any questions or the thought that your argument would have been that looking at the as a whole the notion of converting information from one form or another is abstract also well it certainly is i think that is i think that is a reasonable way to look at it your honor i also do think that particularly when we look at these claims which does not give you any detail on how the conversion is done and even once you get to the specification i think just refers to conventional methods of conversion is that there is not a new algorithm or method for doing the data conversion it is there that is absolutely correct your honor there is nothing that is indicated as being anything other than conventional with respect to t objectively tonight i did not mean to suggest that that would not be the case and certainly to the extent that that is considered a separate idea it would i agree be an abstract when there is nothing concrete about it with respect to the infringement issues i did briefly touch on the format issue there's also the issue of the central processor and the notion that that element has been claimed in entirely functional terms web's construction is such that any computer or set of computers satisfies that limitation and there would be no universe in which the specific requirements that particular steps be performed by the central processor would not be satisfied because the central processor is defined entirely recursively to be any computer or set of computers that does anything not only does that effectively vitiate the claim elements that require software in the central processor to perform particular functions in particular claims but the specification distinguishes between the central processor and the internet server and under easy what's proposed construction that distinction would make no and said it's one of the little individual things and there is abstract and then say well you atom all together you now have an abstract idea and i think we can probably do that with just about every single claim depending on how much you divide this is we have to step back and understand specters all about authentication didn't seem to be in where well identify the problem at a real level is how to publish on the web i mean that you seem to acknowledge in the spec itself is already know people know how to publish stuff from the letter well all right ok so i project so the the idea in the specification is permitting people to publish not by an individual who has knowledge about how to design a web page can certainly done that before just no disagreement on that are the purpose of the invention was to enable others through means that they had at their disposal to start publishing on the that it's a wrap it's a it's a paradigm shift in the way web publishing at that time was done at the and converting then into web publishing devices that's a technologically that's a solution to a real world problem that individuals that now how it's done it's not a complicated process i'm not suggesting that it's there but it's a real unique way of approaching that problem where you then you look you have to deal with the issue of it's coming from multiple different places it's not just coming from a phone it's not just coming from a computer how do i deal with that situation well mr cutting out of deals with that situation by by looking at the format of the message that's coming in that's and that's a novel thing we don't there's actually nothing in the record even though constantly says over and over again looking at the format of a message in order to authenticate identify it was somehow commonplace there's nothing in the record to support that other than a statement by their expert that it was because of this french that reference but the french that reference first of all doesn't say that and second of all french that record reference is a patent that we're talking about here and it was a new and novel think just slightly before fact recognizing the fact number and knowing that this fax number is authorized to use this publishing software so you're saying to me that the non conventional aspect is to recognise that  number corresponds to a unique individual no i'm not saying that what i'm saying is that non conventional aspect of this is recognizing who it is from a multitude of different types uniform way to do it the idea of changing the way you authenticate changing it based on the different pipes of messages that are coming in that's the non conventional thing and there actually is nothing in the record as i said short