quality images compared with traditional film cameras and this is because of the technical technical limitations of image sensors that existed at that time one possible solution was to simply use larger image sensors but this would have realize all of this and therefore they set out on a more trade approach to solve these problems by developing and charlie new digital cam architecture and then you use about architecture to produce digital images and those efforts led to the development of the quaint a configuration or understood to be a possible configuration of two black and white sensors coat plane or i don't believe that issue has been raised there is nothing there are no references on the record that disclosed such configuration ok so so that's all i can really speak to that i guess part of what i was interested in and i think this is in in the red brief to some extent quite a lot of the spec is about a particular embodiment of three single cover sensors plus one black and white sensor and it's possible that all the language about the key invention here is kind of about that the claim language did you agree is broad enough to cover the arrangement i described two that is at appendix twenty seven with the common line number column seven lines thirty six to forty six ok thanks ok so proceeding that the architecture sensor digital cameras and the architecture is important to the claimed invention because using image sensors are closely position with respect to a common plane allows separate images of the same target to be captured of this court's admonition that we must specify we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure that the step one inquiry is meaningful that just a course characterization completely ignores all the structural limitations of the claims and it doesn't consider the structural limitations of the claims in combination with the image and hence that limitation would even cover here instead of just referring to the complete arrangement of the configuration in the claims indicate what is it about this configuration that is a departure from  common plane and they did not use image sensors just it just to be clear does that mean that they are roughly speaking co planar or does it need something else i didn't see in the briefs anybody saying here's what it means to be closely it i would say looking at the senses from a funtime perspective from the standpoint of the image target they have to be close another and close enough so that the same target can be captured with the multiple sensors functionality of the claim system also the problems described nitwit on patent specifications being solved by the invention are clearly technical problems relating to the limitations of then existing image sensors so those problems included things like limited the word enhanced than the limitation of which it is a part have any meaning in the claim or are you saying that if you create the configuration to structural if you have something that satisfies the structural elements of the claim it will automatically make that enhance limitation or does enhanced actually mean something additional enhanced means using information from the nd image to improve the st image so the formula that can be identified in the claim must be considered and determined upon eligibility question and that simply didn't happen at the district court on the issue of preemption position with respect to a common plane likely likewise would not be  that there is no enhanced imminent simply by using the structure that is claimed in the claim instead you need something more and that's absolutely foundational to our allegation and one for example i think one of the best ways to see this is every time that enhancement is discussed in the specification it refers to a whole nother step for example if we look to appendix twenty dollars column ten starting at line six going through line sixteen it describes figure eight which says that in order to do the enhancement you have to st have just normal pictures that come in from the two different sensors and then you have to do a separate step of digital signal processing and then enhanced figure eight has a separate box after you receive the images from these conventional sensors that are just you know use the ones that are cheap don't go create a new sensor we also heard that during the opening argument we're not going to build new sensors we're just going to use the ones that already exist and try to do it in some inexpensive way and that's replete at columns one and two once we get those images we then have to perform digital image processing but we're never told how and then we have to enhance the image and that's it step eight hundred and twenty dollars and figure eight and again risky we're never told how huge this is just  the unexplained but nevertheless meaningful term in handsome and plays into the one on one analysis as opposed to saying either it hasn't been unable or it's indefinite fitted into one of one analysis for me absolutely thank you ron for the question what we have to do in one hundred and one is we have to look to what is the claim directed to what is the whole essentially just of the claim what's the purpose of the claim and what we know here from the claim itself as well as from the specification is that the entire purpose the entire invention is to produce an enhanced image we see that  st in the ad but i guess i but maybe i'm confused about this i thought i heard your friend on the other side say no it cannot be said that if you take out the enhanced meant limitation that the rest of the structure including just the simple fact of two lenses one of which is responsible responses to a full range of color that that structural arrangement with whatever it means to say you know close to whatever the relationship to the plane is that that itsel are what we heard was them trying to add something to the claim that doesn't exist there your honor asked the question could the claim cover to standard black and white sensors and the answer is not only could it it might the claim as written simply says that there are two sensors one of which is sensitive to the full range of color and style and added to the other which everybody understands to me in black and white that's correct your honor black and white it's easier if i just say it that way so that the claim one requires using one black and white sensor and silent to the other claim to says where in the other sensor is also black and white so we know that the independent claim have to cover a situation with two black and white sensors we also know from the great brief that the white isn't that an asserted to advance as long as those two sensors are properly aligned because your honor we know from the intrinsic record that in fact close ally ning sensors is old it's never been disputed that it was conventional in order to place things on a common point it's no different for example th your eyes being on a common point and receiving two images and that's something we discussed in the briefing down below and the notion the the gray brief actually admits that each of the component parts is in fact  conventional and so what we know then and that's by the way is in the grave recent page twelve we know therefore that each of the component parts is just being used in its normal ordinary conventional fashion to simply produc image there is nothing here that takes it out of the realm of the abstract and it doesn't do anything new or different and i don't mean those words i apologize use we're new i don't mean those words in the novelty sense i mean them in the take it out of the realm of the abstract here the gist of the pattern the things that the claim is directed to is not anything new about how you place the sensors in fact again if we look to the specification itself and through columns one and two in appendix twenty four we hear that we don't want to use new sensors we want to use the old sensor so that we can get a better image without costing more a new placement or a new combination of how these things are used the claim itself just says make sure you've got two sensors that can both be black and white that receive data to create an image and then the magic happens when you combine or enhance those images by using one image with another image and so what we're in what we heard during the opening argument was that the real thrust of the specification was if you use three sensors that are different from the force you will be able to provide the missing data and therefore come up with an enhancement but that's not how it was claimed it wasn't claimed as one or three sensors that are completely different from the th and therefore there will be a benefit because of you know providing missing data that simply isn't how it's client and alice we have to look to how things are claimed in that sense this case is exactly like two way media where to a media tried to get information from one place to another in multicasting sense and it said and i'm going to stick another computer in the middle so that that helps get the information from the source out to the recipient and the thing in the middle is going to do the one thing that figures it all out here and into a media i'm sorry no where was it ever described how that happened or how that intervening computer or server was used in an unconventional way exactly the same thing here even though there is  black and white sensors there is absolutely nothing that explains how that enhances an image until you use one image to enhance another and that is nowhere described instead that is we are never told how to effectuate the abstraction instead we have only the black box of the digital signal processor and figure three of the digital signal processing in figure eight and the enhanced the image of eight hundred and thirty dollars in figure eight therefore the case law tells us that this is just an abstract claim claiming the functional benefit of an enhanced image nothing else nothing  else if your honour's didn't have any other questions and i had only other thing can i just i think return to a subject that we were discussing before can you point with some specificity to i think you referred to the prosecution history but the material read that you rely on say that putting aside the enhancement feature of the claim the rest can not just the components but there are arrangement that can be seen for example at appendix one hundred and twenty three the figure itself shows that this wasn't refuted in any way shape or form by the by the applicant and i understand that it was  action allowance but they still if they dissed believe that could have submitted materials that said and i do not believe that that's true they did not do so similarly they haven't disputed that below gano actually says it as do the other references that are cited in the file the string that's again at appendix for example one hundred and eighteen that leads me also chair on one other question which i think  to the advance here is this structural arrangement so you are i think for example the specification does talk about if you had completely different sensors for example if you had a red green blue sensor in combination with a black and white sensor specification make hay of the fact that then you would be using the black and white sensor to potentially fill in information that was missed by the red green or blue sensor that's what the specification talks about that's not claimed your honor just the opposite the claim simply says have one black and white sensor and claim two tells us and make sure the other sensors also black and white therefore there is no other information that's being missed there's no other information that you would necessarily come up with that could be even used to make the enhancement if you practice a claim as it this is a this is one of those cases where you have to look very carefully to jackley what is claimed not to what the specification describes  memory and storing information that was found to be ineligible even though the specifications the civically also disclosed embodiments that work claimed in the dependent claims that said don't store redundant data well if you didn't store the redundant data then it could speed up the system and somehow make that therefore eligible that shows us that it's not just within the specification it's what's claimed that matters so even though the specification may have had something that if claimed and we don't know if they could've or what it would have been but it wasn't claim therefore it's still an eligible does that  question thank you for that thank you very much your honor and in that sense this case also is not like sales where the simple usage of the two sensors placed in different places inherently produced the benefit nor is it like maco where the claim gave the specificity of how to achieve the improved image here we have no idea how to achieve the improved image and in fact we have no as concerning mr patten my correct that's correct your honor and how does that proceeding correspond to this one so the p tab decisions that are to have been final written briefly address some of the pallies points to tell you again improperly focusing on individual claims limitations to limitations and not the claim combination of limitations what is nonconventional and the claims it's a claim the combination of the structural components and the claims that use of those components to produce a result in digital image that is not something that  have have have addressed also this is not a process claim this is an apparatus claim but discloses details of a specific and unconventional digital camera architecture those details are themselves pen eligible components in those cases that's a common theme throughout those cases as opposed to the present case where we have a specific architecture this is just trying to can i just ask can you address  of to a full region of physical color spectrum and actually the reason why the claims were found allowable was for that reason it wasn't because of image enhanced and it was because of the failure of any of the references to disclose never censored that senses to a full thank you we thank both parties and the case to submit that concludes our proceeding for the morning thank you all the honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten a