court on behalf of appellant steve morse i would like to focus my argument today on three issues first it was error to divide individual claim terms into multiple abstract ideas in the course followed and then to find them  ineligible subject matter second the patent sought here a computer specific problem they actually improve an existing technological process and third there was no evidence to support that fact finding still relatively made by the district court and that was improper at the stage of a rule twelve c motion you know part of the difficulty here is neither side has addressed our decision intellectual ventures from last july familiar with that i am here on a well doesn't that require us to reject some of your arguments for example on the fact finding issue well your honor i would say that specifically the i don't think it should all that to our attention in disgust at your respect i believe that came out after the briefs were submitted and perhaps we should have submitted a notice of supplemental already but i would point out that the electoral ventre decision we believe highlights the problem with what the district court did in this particular case in intellectual ventures the court focused on two claims in two different patents and among those claims it found a single abstract idea in each one of those claim lots of different but what it said what the case said was that the idea of tailoring the advertising to demographic and geographic feature ventures it was web presentation we're not merely focusing on that we have individual claims that is part of the claim is a whole involved much more than just mere looking at demographics in tailoring the ad presentation to that we have an entire bidding process that's part of the same claim but that's a different argument and that's fact which i did make the underlying argument that at the trial court should have done a full factual analysis of whether tailoring ads to a particular demographic or geographic customer was something that was well known in the past and intellectual ventures analog to the bidding process for placement of the advertisements and it said the process was well known to us no no your honor it's not it's not a matter of whether it was well known it's a matter of preemption  this case not what was it well not betting process i thought that the patent here itself recognized that that was well known and are so the bidding process here of the court the way the court analyzed it was it said that that was an abstract concept in other words that was a fundamental known concept that is bit while we don't disagree that bidding in the abstract might be the problem here is you can't take a single at and claim in dissect it into multiple abstract concepts and then attack it at some point any path you claim would suffer under that analysis and that violates the direction the alice to this court with respect to the caution that too broad an interpretation of the exclusionary principle with this rate all happened all because of some level all happens or based upon combinations and rests upon and reflect laws of nature a natural phenomenon or abstract concepts and the problem here is that they the court took two separate very different abstract concepts and said that a single claim was directed to both what the court didn't find and what i think it was required to find is if there would be preemption in the subject matter of either or both by these claims  it's a factor to consider but it never said it's a requirement that it no in fact what as is articulated is whether there is a disproportionate risk that the judicial exception would be fully preempted in here there is no disproportionate risk that targeted advertising or building would be completely in this raided or threatened by the combination of that those two principles in one claim where do we stop what is the principle reason for stopping it to why not ten why not twenty different abstract ideas within the same claim at some level of we district courts to break down claims into any number of abstract ideas and then to claim that what's there results abstract no patent claim no method fine like this will survive but what was the invention here so here actually goes to a very specific customized internet advertising presentation and as a method for deriving well how is a different from what was being done before so it's different in that it's almost an existing problem that actually was not a brick and mortar process the existing problem was that methods of internet advertising this is limited to that were dependent entirely upon search results so for said as an abstract idea but there was no bidding at all in intellectual ventures and that's a key element of the claim this quarter simply can't disregard that and the district court in kind of separating that out and dealing with it actually made i think an implicit fact finding that's not supported by the record why isn't it in conventional it's not what so what the district court and analogized it to was that advertisers would often play a more for certain classified ads in the newspaper and the court said that in effect that but it's not that that's that's a factual finding that did not  that this was a notion bidding that existed as a fundamental concept in alice in bilski the supreme court twice when it identified a fundamental concept it pointed to a specific reference in bilski there were three references in by state this court to the very same thing and that's our call instruction to district courts they're the least you should point to something to illustrate that it's a fundamental well known economic concept so the idea of bidding for advertisements if i go to a store and i happen to pay more for an item just as i would pay more for a classified ad that doesn't mean that i'm bidding against somebody for that to set that ultimate price that there's another consumer there i'm choosing to pay more but the choice to pay more does not necessarily invoke in bidding process in a court just nest that issue and we believe that was improper implicit fact finding that led to the error of this decision below because it most when you have multiple abstract concepts the only risk preemption is in the intersection of those concepts that's where the claim lies and if that intersection is as narrow as it is in this case then there is not a legitimate r preemption and that's especially true when you have these claims that are directed to solving a technological problem this problem of so if your argument that that a time there's more than one abstract idea we can't have i want to align that terminations no your honor i think i would argue that in this case that the combination of these two very disparate abstract concepts doesn't invoke of a legitimate risk of preemption and so the one of one else's fails in this case there might hypothetically be some instances where you could now facebook i would point out they argue that this court has in fact already addressed the situation with multiple abstract claims and they cite to the content extraction opinion but we would point out that's not really a fair reading of abstract concept like the couple portions of and then you would find no analogue to this that that was a fundamental well known concept there was no fundamental well known concept that combined the direct mail or that you get in your mailbox with a bidding process there's no bidding that goes on for postal carriers to the liver and direct mail to your home so the idea that this was something that was previously unknown or that this would up this would preempt a well known fundamental known method of commerce just doesn't equate that's why the district court did what it did it it had to break this up into multiple abstract claims and attacked them each individually and that's what was improper that's what this court found was improper in d v r holdings because not only was that a technological solution to a technological problem as was the case here but also district court failed to focus on and identify a single abstract concept and we pointed out that error below and yet the court did it and that's one of the basis for error here is that the court in focusing on multiple abstract concepts didn't focus on one and identify one so we need to understand that not only is this an abstract concept but whether or not it's going to preempt a known method of intellectual ventures to different claims but one was budgeting the abstract idea there was budgeting simple budgeting was a combination of budgeting and betting and similarly the other claim was simply analyzing information to in other words to a court in allergies due to a situation where advertising might be presented differently if it were presented it different times of day so it was tailoring advertising for tailoring a web presentation but there was no aspect of bidding in that at all nothing that was just totally separate and different idea and and here steve morse came up with this idea to introduce this element something that wasn't obvious to anyone to introduce this new element in that level of bidding to be the product graphic will the demographic element is actually separate from the bidding but it looks at both demographics and  we're looking at when we're deciding whether or not it's improperly abstract and therefore it's not eligible subject matter are we getting into an area where if we allow this claim we're going to preempt the entire class of coins ultimately that's what the entire preemption analysis is is on to focus on whether there is that  as i mentioned this is a this is a technological problem that didn't exist prior to the one nine hundred ninety one in the advent of internet advertising the idea that advert ads were based entirely on search terms and the route and the response to search terms in the limitations that were necessarily present met well this was a slip and now the district court focused on the problem and the purpose behind the invention but that's the wrong intellectual ventures versus capital one the court dealt specifically with the notion of whether or not targeted advertising was well known and in fact something that was the exact phrase that was used long prevalent in our society abstraction is simply the idea of placing an ad that was targeted based on a bit that's the abstraction here if read on the other side has agreed that intellectual ventures sort of  the abstract to simply say that you're going to use a bid to place a targeted at science that i'm sure because it's the simple notion there is nothing anywhere in the claims or in the sense of occasion that describes how that's done it's the separately the issue of written description enablement one zero one one zero two those all still exist but if you look back to the claims themselves the claims claim nothing more than the abstract idea of placing the targeted ad based on a bit and that's what the district court below counts as a whole it's the simple idea of placing the ad targeted at based on bad information the specification of the patent at a forty column three line forty four through sixty talk about how to pay for placement database search system and adjustment of bids that are made to place ads based on search so placing an ad based that this is just an abstract idea that was well known and that in fact there's nothing further inventive that is exactly what alice asks us to do the first is is there simply an abstract idea that claim here and here is the abstract idea network processor database or processor electronics and in fact the specification clearly points out at a forty four and a forty five that in fact any computer should be is that there is nothing specific about the computer or the hardware it's being used here including specific or rather generic concepts of getting generic concepts about places and sector the computer has to be programmed through performers abstract  computers always have to be programmed to perform any object that address step in for example a content extraction the computer had to be performed in order to read the data that was coming in in order to separate and organize it into a database that did not remove it from the level of abstraction similarly in i v s the computer had to be programmed in order to monitor what the navigation usage was what time of day things were whatever you need for example if a specific piece of hardware was described assigned and claimed that performed the step where perhaps if there was for example a very specific hardware that somebody invents a concept from correct it absolute would always have to go the extra step of also including the benefit concept similarly perhaps if there had been something in the claims themselves that was dedicated to addressing a specific internet related problem we keep hearing the idea that this is all related to an internet only problem and therefore it's d d r but if we go back to the claims themselves the claims themselves never say such a thing or address any specific problem from the internet  obstruction no i don't believe so your honor because the claims that the name quote the court the name of the game is a claim and you always have to look to what the claim that i agree that claims are always interpreted in light of the specifications from which they must not necessarily a matter it's a part of the one hundred one it's a part of the one on one analysis also how broad are we going how broad are the claims going if the claims had been more narrow and more specific to something that itself was an inventive additional hardware piece if that's a question iran is asking that by sometimes making a play much more narrow you may actually take it out of the realms abstraction i think that is a i am not one hundred i'm not sure what exactly would have had to have been added because i can't myself invision it right now sitting here but i could imagine a case in which a claim like this which said i want to target advertising based on demographics and i am going to use a specific data engine that takes information from a user in one language with a form that looks a certain way and brings it in takes all of that information translated into a different language reconstruct everything and then uses a particular arised device on the other end which itself has actually programmed hardware to recognize that all of the details of implementation they're saying that it had all of those details of implementation then the clintons rather than the specification that would have solved the problem of one or one not necessarily i still do not sorry your hypothetical was not their invention there's no way to write this invention that the point here in a mama abstract way because it's abstract i agree with that your honor and that's why i'm struggling so deeply because i think the claims themselves would have to be that was i believe that was the question i was asked what what would you have to add in order to make this out of the realm of the abstract and that when i when i was asked to question a claim construction you know whatever judge dicus interpreted my question to trying to take them out of that realm they say that there's someplace instruction that might save them but they never propose what it is and this court has said in content extraction that if you do not explain what that proposed place instruction is the court simply can't make one up here i contend there are no places such as that would take these claims out of the realm of the abstract and that's why the ivy case is so spot on and actually does exactly what it needs to do here and there is nothing in step two that has any a forty five and a forty four and columns twelve and nine i believe in the other that say simply these are conventional means conventional hardware and conventional software that's been used so there's nothing invented here either think your honor of the court brought up the issue of claim construction which is an important fact we complain mightily about the fact that the district court did not do a clean construction and clean construction terms were proposed in fact intellectual construction here that would take these claims out of the realm of the abstract and respectfully at the stage of motion prejudgment on the pleadings what the district court has to find is there is no possible claim construction themselves claim constructions for bid and bid amount that take it completely out of the realm of the abstract and into the realm of specifically the internet for example bid in bed amount we've been talking about bit a monetary amount and this is in the record a eleven thirty for a monetary amount that the advertiser will pay each time a user clicks on the advertiser them was no more that and that was  well known in the internet and the time the spat nap was fought and again your honor respectfully i think that confuses the idea of what was known in the prior art this combination was not what was known in the prior art versus what was conventional and whether we're something can be conventional on the internet so does it the question is does this take does a construction take it out of the realm of the abstract does it tie it down to something to where we don't have the risk of preemption in if a claim construction would do that then the court should adopt a claim construction if it saves it a claim from being impossibly abstract that i think is  detail one can construe a claim it was a serious and certainly we're not advocating some novel claim construction principles here we we believe that under philips provisional application of claim destruction principles the the abstract idea what reconciliation of accounts but but the claims themselves were very specific about how those accounts and get reconciled through the use of software and through the internet but the supreme court didn't find that that was enough i'm not sure how clicking is is going to get to more than the shadow accounts and the reconcile yet asian mechanisms would have gotten out so a claim of that nature would not pre they would have had to say that not all third party reconciliation is preempted so i agree that the test is really whether it presents an unreasonable risk of preemption in that case it's improperly the phrase each advertisement being searchable they claim construction was proposed was that they be they must be using an internet search engine so that it actually has to be performed in the internet context and again more so has always taken the position of there's your problem again and supplying the internet to this abstract concept analysis that's abstract well but if the claims themselves are directed only to an improvement of a technological process i  internet i understand that there was nothing that limited it only in only in that context in fact the court said this that the danger here is that it would the entire idea of this abstract idea it wasn't merely solving an internet problem so ultimately was not limited in there was nothing in the claims that was