all this information is in the original case thanks there's a clear discussion of how it all works well as will be appreciated by those skilled in the art the reactive targeting provided by client software application temp is handled in real time rather than simply as a part of building a user is doing at any particular time the key concept involved in real time what the user is doing at that particular time it goes on it with an explanation regarding stocks then moving on there's a very very clear disclosure of grabbing around from the internet not just in local storage online forty and scuse me starting on thirty eight further for user computers that enjoy a full time connection to the internet the reactive targeting can be used to access a specific advertisement over the internet rather than from a priest or  sent to a t m server twenty two or some other advertising server as posted form data with the server using the data to select and download an appropriate after tyson this permit criticized by the board and this is the only point that was made was that it wasn't clear whether it was the selection or the transfer that had to occur in real time but what's there in the disclosure well first of all obviously the display is there it's terribly lacking why the selection and down are also spelled out in black and white but there's another way to think about this obviously the point is to display to the user something that relates to what he or she is doing at that time well in order to do that there obviously has to be a selection the column sixteen disclosure the ad is being retrieved from the internet well it's being selected for transfer and this is all occurring in real time and it's quite clear and that's where we were criticized we didn't say whether it was selection a transfer well there's no need to say that it's spelled out quite clearly in our written description support but let me go back to the issue about unique information sent over the computer network we agree with facebook but where we are currently part company is whether the rest of the claim language is just a support and we say it is we say those words a limitation they have apparently disagree with respect to show the shock email address again is a user identifier it does not identify what comes from the computer it identifies what comes from the user and like the other items that have been argued and found b requires that information is identified by the identifier and said that we did not provide persuasive evidence that the information must be the computer itself we sure didn't because we never argued that that that is the straw person that the board took game and the board said that we didn't prove that the information must be the computer we never said anything remotely like that and then so can you you just describe what your argument is not can you repeat what your argument is and then tell me what the daylight is between your argument vs the argument  argument very simply is that as the language said and it's all agree it is information that is being identified which information isn't it is the information set over set computer network from the computer is the key point of dispute to said server the from the computer point does not in our mind signify that the identifier must percept identify the computer and there are two seventeen where these two q disclosures are they're talking about a user id but they're talking about a user id first being provided to the particular piece of software  on the computer and second using a cookie now in these examples judge chance what we see is something that goes beyond merely identifying the user the user id the unique identifier whatever type of identifier it is when it is provided to the software on a particular computer it doesn't say joe's computer sally's computer what it says all right this identifier identifies this piece of software that piece of software resides on a specific computer therefore that identifier is capable of meeting the limitation the shah e mail address doesn't have that characteristic it can't do that all it does is say this information came from that user who has that e mail address the same thing with the cookie the cookie is provided to the computer when i d d is associated with the cookie the information that goes with the cookie is uniquely identified as coming from that computer although it isn't per se and identifier of the computer but it serves the function it serves the purpose not certainly the idea of using demographic information in the abstract that's something that was well but as the internet was growing there was something that was very different that was coming around and that was the ability to use this reactive targeting and to do so in real time this is not something that ties back to anything that could have happened before it's very neat and specific to what was going on as the internet was developing it is it is your inventive concept used to display in real time based on what the user happens to be browsing at the time it is it is an inventive concept it is the use of computer usage information for for that purpose the use of the computer usage information and the use of the computer usage information in the targeting but beyond that the rest are the three one for patent is addressing other new ideas involving the use of this the new technology that was now available and the art it's been cited doesn't doesn't demonstrate that the that the invented steps that are in claim eleven were all i have another point to make about the specific reference to w three  remember that one but in general your honor i think it is ok so in the abstract targeted advertising the idea of targeting advertising yes that's abstract but we go we go beyond that we use specific features to do specific kinds of targeting and these are tied to the new developments that were then available and put in the internet you wrote you in there is a clear distinction between the identifier as claimed in claim eleven and the identifier as yours in w three c what it sa is that identity is oftentimes to a user's client machine through site specific cookies this creates an unnecessary and inconvenience for penance since users frequently move from machine to machine and then it offers some solutions and what the w three c proposal does among other things is it removes that cookie dependency which creates the machine record in which there is a combination where none of the items are disputed we haven't heard about that today because they have no good answer for it angles plus scholl it's undisputed that the angles plus shock the nation includes all of the elements of the claims and in fact the angles reference specifically talks about using cookies with the identifier in order to send information to and from the computer the only argument that patent owner has made of any form verses the bangles and shock combination is somehow that it wouldn't be there at the moment the motivation to combine didn't exist but the problem is the board actually pointed out that there was a very specific reason for combining angles and shop and that would be and this is at age twenty two that the combination would result in reduced costs and increased efficiencies and they come to this conclusion right after citing portions of the petition which indicated that the combination of angles and shot would result in the claimed invention and at page forty two of the petition which is that a sixteen and twenty three specifically column twelve of the patent is pointed out as supporting that it would be a good idea in order to increase efficiency to store the advertisement locally so that you could access it more quickly column twelve of angles specifically contemplates that you would want to store information locally in order to access it more quickly and  a seventeen zero one therefore the examiner had sufficient evidence in the record to easily conclude that the combination was correct but here we have an even more interesting scenario in which itself has conceded that the combination is proper because of the increase in speed so here in the record itself even seeds that it would be faster to be able to access local storage of advertisements they do so at age twenty five ten which is in their brief down below and they also do so in their brief here above at pages thirty five thirty six where the indicate that storage of  the advertising storage medium on the consumer computer would provide for faster access to the stored advertisements thereby providing the proper motivation for someone using angles to look to shop to see how that might be done their only argument is that wouldn't dispense with the need for commands from the advertising computer or eliminate the need for online communication but that's not required for there to be a motivation to combine socially that you would look to the farm nation in order to find something in some reason to combine the references and here that's absolutely true and there's no argument that there is not a unique identifier in the hills in shock combination with respect to your honor's question regarding the one to one i think it's very important to point out that early in the argument today mr freydis indicated that in fact the proposed amendment includes broad claim language you can use it in any way and in any combination you want so saying that this is in fact very concedes that in fact targeted advertising is generic and says that the only thing that might be somehow new is the every idea real time however in terms of real life analogies real time targeting of advertisements are used have been used for centuries including for example walking around times square noticing that someone has kids with them and giving them in real time a pamphlet for the lion king instead of for some more serious play that's a targeted advertising happening in real time but the pattern itself also gives us the possibility of real time access to information we look to column three which is the day one eight n sorry eleven eighteen in describing it the bland patent they specifically indicate that information may be given periodically and this is that line six or in response to a specific request by the servers that's something that could be happening in real time so there's nothing saying that real time wasn't actually in the priority itself just that perhaps it wasn't used when you use the power of an asian but the rest of the specification in columns one two and three fully embrace the notion that targeted advertising based on usage data based on demographics is in fact generic and has all your honour's do actually have have recently had a case strict and i think that is absolutely abstract in fact your honour's recently had a case in front of you the more sober she's facebook case where the exact issue was targeting advertisements based on demographics and that case there was a rule thirty six  of a want to one rejection your honour's also recently had in front of you the basket case where your honour's found that the filtering of information is in fact generic in that case you're filtering information the opposite direction you're trying to find out what not to serve and stead of what to serve but the fact remains that filtering information from a server down to a user isn't up to self generic and those two very recent cases i think are awkward for that point and with that with that you're unless you have any further questions i think there is sufficient evidence to find that in fact the rejection of the original claims was proper over the combination of angles and shots and that the one zero one rejection is also proper to eleven unique identifier with respect to the idea of a motivation to combine the evidence that was presented made it clear that these two systems are different one way that  require continuous connection but it's quite clear in angles that what's going on is simply using those dial ups for as a portal to the internet the other problem that infected everything the board did in the facebook case is its reliance on the predictable results idea what happens in a case where it's difficult to think no evidence no explanation in the support and yet the board's conclusion is driven heavily and not exclusively by this predictable result idea and where we end when that concept is used as it was is with the burden of proof being placed on the patent holder that's what we see throughout the board's analysis pattern or didn't prove that no didn't persuade so they