because the decision was predicated upon labeling the claim limitation selection to hold deliberate as well as nine other limitations of representative claimed seven decision was flawed because alice plush and against we do reducing each claim element to individual abstract ideas because that would in  very limitation that was added during the prosecution to render the claims substantively allowable over three pieces of prior art that were being applied and also to render the claims patent eligible under one on one which i might add at this point that the one on one rejection or in prosecution started before alice and the last one ended after alice post alice and the addition of selection told deliberate was found to satisfy subsequently and from an abstract idea the selection to hold discovery to hold this deliberate alone by itself as well as in common it and i know there are limitations to cite particular ways of communicating information to coordinate and monitor maggots delivery the trial court simply jump to the conclusion that all the limitations in claim seven could be done using a telephone and then concluded that the claim was directed to an abstract idea under the st prong of the alice test however the trial court's conclusion was not based upon following appropriate fact discovery and expert witness reports and discovery indeed i'm sure we all have had nightmare stories of dealing with trying to reclaim lost luggage hollywood has produced comedies many movies about lost luggage the one that comes to mind is meet the parents with ben still simply telephoning someone at the airline is not always a solution else there would not be any nightmare stories to deal with however none of that whether it's good or bad demonstrating how quick and easy or how difficult difficult it is to recover a lost luggage by a telephone call to the airline is not in the record the only evidence that's in the record is what is intrinsic which is the patent itself with a background of the invention description alluding to a telephone these additional limitations were well understood routine and conventional all they have all they happily has is the background of the invention and there is nothing in the background of the invention that the judge the trial court could have understood to reach the conclusion of being well understood routine and conventional selection to hold deliberate is an example of a claim element that cannot be accomplished by using the old fashion telephone by simply calling one of the earth or someone at the airline selection the whole deliberate may arguably be subject to  different interpretations hence the need for a marksman which we did not have interpreted it interpreted very narrowly maybe the  valid under our laws but not infringed on virtually interpret in them true broadly maybe it is directed to an abstract idea possibly it was all in in validity or d that the subject matter of the alice role i had to say that but to be fair i had to present both arguments if the interpretation was so broad that it meant nothing more than the preamble of the claim which is essentially what the district court said then it would be easy or easier to find it directed to an abstract idea but as we know from alice we're not supposed to examine the claim with such granularity that we look at each claim element conclude that each claim element is an abstract idea because as i said before nothing would be palatable we have to look at it in context of what was well i'm sure a conventional non routine and we have to look at the whole thing so in our case much like the president the president that we have before us a turks the others we have a very very detailed happily would argue that we basically do nothing but put a period after the preamble we don't interpret it that broadly we interpret it to mean exactly what it says literally our argument from day one has been that the case is going to revolve around what selection to hold delivery means what is the scope of that term in the pa and sixty minute delay or for whatever the infringing system being sold by rhodey there's not have a dropdown box it does have a selection and the selection of loudness of the passenger to call the driver through the server is called for in claim on their claim seventy and reschedule before filing suit read out on a trap so you know basically where we had a package delivered from my house to my out by house and midstream i changed liberate when my mind that did both it changed many of the parameters that related to the delivery programmers and then after the case after a fall the case roadie complained actually mr stein flew to atlanta for no reason came back and lost his luggage and had it scheduled to be delivered to the office and then specifically changed the time of the delivery same one patient but different time and they still complain there's no infringement in fact that begs the the root of the problem here is that under alice the abstract idea reasoning the basis for alice is that we don't want the patent system to be construed so broadly that it forecloses competition by keeping somebody out of a big field where here that's not the case rody is hotly contesting infringement and we believe they are infringing upon the reason just explained but that just goes to show you that there is no preemption there's no preemption in the baghran the baggage delivery business there happen to be predominantly two competitors us and them but there's no preemption that way and anyone can get into the field by simply not having the functionality of selecting the whole delivery there's no preemption whatsoever truck if they want to go to trial and rely on their defense that there's no might find let's go to trial but judge andrews short circuited that because we didn't get into any discovery we started as part of the market and determination and we the words in the claims that we had agreed to which actually were most of them think it was documents sixty six in the pleading and i t if you look at the agreed upon terms they were very specific passenger lever or very specific what was in dispute was they selection to hold delivery i do i think i have two minutes left greg ok so your honor bottles i know our position is right some places that we should not have been cut short we should have been allowed to at least go through them are going to terminate from an trial and fundamentally there's no evidence in the record except for the intrinsic in reverse order one is this case was went through discovery we actually went through quite a bit of discovery in this case number two i'm not sure why we're talking about infringement today but as long as we're on the topic we filed it to sponsor a motion on infringement alleging that they didn't know if we file an investigation we clearly don't infringe both the want to one motion i think the reason for the discussion of infringement was to show that if you are right about your infringement position then the scope of what is preempted by their patent is at least narrow enough to allow you to compete your honor that if that's the argument if they're saying that we don't need to be here if they're going to concede we don't infringe but they did they're not going to concede it but you know that was the point well i don't know your honor and i would say that that argument does not eliminate the preemption argument we don't have to be preempted number one we have other reasons for this case to end right here  to go through the two step process under alice that's what we're here to look at and in that process the court determined that the plane claimed seven was directed to an abstract idea so on review the st thing that this court is asked to do is consider whether that was an error and can you remind me what what what discussion into district court used discussion loosely so that you could say everything that might fall under that term was there about clean construction where there are specific arguments that this claim term means x and you said no it means y and hearing on martin we had briefed martin we had done all but argued marksman and so right before judge the judge issued his opinion on one of one he cancelled our argument on the market so it was fully proofed brief ready to go to argument he cancelled the oral argument and about a week or two later he issued want to want in the one to one he'd specifically construed what it meant to the term selection the whole me and he held he construed it it's in his opinion he said it means well st of all he said the parties disagree on what it needs so he gave them the benefit of the do he construed it means sending a communication to the deliverer via the server to change the law done that is his construction that is clean construction so that the statement that there was no probably because the other side was focused on that particular limitation and what the judge said was that that does nothing to get over step one or step two that all you're doing is adding another abstract idea to an abstract idea all you're doing is saying don't pick up the luggage yet i'm not reading and what judge the judge in the district court said was that this has been done for years and as far as what the intrinsic evidence is if you go to the background section which is appendix appendix twenty eight dollars there's not much there but it describes everything they're doing and that's the that's what's wrong with this pat there's just not anything there in the background section of this pattern it describes the whole process of your baggage going somewhere where you're not and calls being made to say where's my bags come pick it up call a taxi to to deliver it all of this involves the in the prior art involves phones if you look at what they say in the patent is there are and where they have a server they and they have two functions they have two devices that are held by the truck the passenger is one and the deliverer is the other and those are they go into a description in the patent about how they can be anything it can be a computer it can be a notepad it can be any computing device no special computing device whatsoever no special software if you look in the past there's nothing about the programming no language nothing in the hardware nothing in the software everything that is done in that claim is done in the prior art and that's not much but it's not much in in the patent claim if you look at the patent claim itself which judge the judge did at th court level is he said look it's all it's doing is telling you to do things that you could have done by the fall and well of all this really is an app that's what a mimics a phone instead of you talking to me you might be sending me a test or you might have it and interface it says ok it's coming whatever there's just nothing there there's no special computers there's no special hardware connection networking anything there's nothing here that you could say is different from what was done prior or as far as the judge is determination that this is an abstract idea he specifically referred to his claim construction on the selection to hold and what it meant he construed it and he said that didn't do it that they're not enough and just add the abstract idea of telling you telling the server to don't pick it up yet because i'm not there if you look in the background section it even says in the prior art that the deliverer would call the passenger and why would he call a passionate to see if he was there it even says he called to see if he was there why is he doing that to see if he chewed delivered or not it's all just another way of saying what's already been out there and if anything your honor that the court probably looked at this and said yeah we've all done this we've all been there we've all traveled and had x not follow us we've all made calls we've all had to deal with the airlines and it's the same kind of thing it's in this one claim and this is only one claim that we're dealing with  representative they did not argue at the district court in their motion that they were deep in a claims that did anything different or that the other independent claims did anything differently so there's no question that this is the representative claimed seven is the only thing we're looking at and when you look at that claim the claim language there is one hundred percent completely functional all it does is it talks about setting things up for delivery it doesn't talk about how it does it other then indirectly it says there's a computing device for each person every one of these your honor everybody has one and we've had him for a long time so there's nothing unique here that's in the claims  terms of what the what the judge also did in addition to finding that this was an abstract idea he also found that there was nothing else in step to hold this out of the realm of just an abstract idea there was no inventive concept that was added to this he said and this is this is where the judge made what you could call factual findings there's nothing different there's nothing  is conventional just go back to the background section and see that this is being done for a long time and you're not adding anything different and therefore i'm finding that there's nothing here that pushes this into discovery your honor i just again the issue is one of law we've actually had that discovery already this case has been going on a lot longer than anybody wanted it to it started in any notion that this is anything but an abstract idea the case law there's plenty of case law that says that if all you're doing is something that you normally get in the past but you're not doing a computer that's not going to push you out  i don't know if you had any other specific questions but you know the con the idea that these were very specific claims claims don't have anything in it but an claim seven doesn't have anything but a server it says that i'm doing these steps with a server and then i'm communicating with computing device held by a traveler or the passenger and the deliver y doesn't say how it's just it could have been a phone call it doesn't it doesn't say by patch it doesn't say i was programmed the pull down menus those kind of details are not in the planes whatsoever courts can consider those statements in assessing whether there's an event concept absolutely that's part of the intrinsic evidence and if you look at their chart chart in our corrected reply brief we address that beginning on page fourteen to explain why there's a lot of something more  calmer that you're familiar where this was just done prematurely we should have gone through a full market hearing that it might have been a summary judgment motion but we wouldn't be here in this context we have a valuable patent that's made a lot of money in the company gets sold for tens of millions of dollars it's a big industry