think this is a case where the claim invention in this patent is directed to improving the functioning of a computer system when the user is filling out online forms such as insurance  applications the software that's described in claimed in this patent solve the problem in the prior art that users would lose data that they have they've already they already entered when they would use the back and forth court case in which we filed socks in the greeves number one there was no abstract idea in the coins first of all so that's the first part of the test and second of all even if there were some abstract idea in the claims there's an event of a concept here which is software that improves the functioning of the computer system it allows the user to enter information in these that's perhaps a z abstract idea well i don't think that's that for them strict idea because that's a physical action maintaining state is something that a computer is is actually doing it's our position is that's not an abstract idea at all second of all when you look at this patent it very clearly describes the invention in in  but in the specifications that there is a definition of what maintaining state means and in the specification they say that this is what distinguishes us over the prior art we maintain state in in a certain way we maintain virtual application status we maintain data dependencies and we maintain informational comments when i look at the claims claims one and two seem to me the say this  is called a line and first of all that one started at one forty five because i took that's the best place to start the most important aspect of the user interface of the present venture it is not that it has tabs or that i yes i think there was something to that effect your honor but if i can go on i can show you in the spec where that is is more is explained in more detail in that that's down at line story or in sixty it says in contrast to the prior art the present system in a mall which environments maintains virtual application information relative dependencies that means relative data dependencies as stated above information context obtained and or derived from each pane accessed by the user applicant this state maze so that's the definition this take maintenance enables use of standard browser back and forward button functions without loss of data and without losing the user's place in the application process a user can therefore back up water more sub pains or pains that is switched to a logically earlier tab and correct or change a data how well that's how it is it is maintaining virtual application information relative data dependencies and information context obtained and or derived because that the in contrast sent to her as a result they maintaining a state is a result well basically how how does the invention get to maintain state when you use a fork in the backbone well what is it about this invention that that preserves the information on the different things that it's the it maintains the virtual application information which it says the prior didn't do i know what it does counsel i want you to tell me how well that is that that functional description is the description of the software and that that is directed to somebody skilled in the art to actually write the code now if this this is not a case where look at the pattern and see the code and be able to repeat exactly what looks like well first of all your i understand the question i think it's certainly a good question but under the current state of the law that you don't have to put the code in  to a patent to enabling it it's it can be a functional description and there's no requirement that that source code and first code is really i'm a functional description too even though it's a lower level so under for example the northern telecom case which i cited in the brief back from one thousand nine hundred to the federal circuit this court said that when you have computer implemented inventions the they're just they're directed for those killed in the art to be able to write the allies would look at this and say the concepts of not losing your entries on the forms when you go back and forth is abstract i don't think so your it's it's a generalization but i don't think it's abstract it's not an algorithm it's not a basic tool research it's not about a fundamental economic principle or any of the examples that the supreme court date now i understand that that analysis the court said we're not the stablish in an absolute definition but this is just not like any of those things the big difference between this case and bilski and ours in the recent judge a test case that the court decided is that we're improving the function computers and improving them to the computer system effectuating a faster processor or maintaining a larger cache of memory those are aspects of improving the computer system if you are simply improving that when the user uses it i think that that is an improvement to the so that there may be true and that may be a valuable result to try to achieve and certainly i think most people have filled out forms have had noted the problem that the two fighting claim when they claim to but you still haven't shown how you're going to do this how the problem is solved let me give an example i can fill out a form open the drawer put the form in closer drawer and walk out of the room come back the next day open the drawer full of the form and there's all the information now i'm not only explain the prior art i'm not only explain what the showed you is what i believe answers the questions and all software in impact is as described in functional terms at least the way software patents are currently written the code is not required i mean if if if someone had actually written the codes for those various things that i described and put it in here then yes it would be you know of a much more detail specification and perhaps would have less of a problem and it enabled me to think they're brought as the as a defendant the appellate you say that they still don't have an abstract idea but it's not required but when there's a situation it all in all respects but when there's a situation where we say we have an application status is maintained relative data dependencies are maintained information context is maintained meaning that there may be numerous other ways to get to the same results and not doing it this way there's nothing in the under section one hundred one that the claimed invention is what is or is not patentable subject matter if you just look at a specification and you don't say well at least with respect to these claims this is this is what they cover then i my name is john triggs long with ryan levy i represent probably the general on this matter but i speak on behalf of in this portion of my argument for all of the defendants the police alison smale myriad  to test this theory of mind is a two part test you look for whether or not there is an abstract idea and then secondly you look to see having found there that abstract idea or any of the other exceptions you look to see is there something more supreme court has acknowledged and everything engine starts with an abstract idea of what you can call an abstract idea and to see through levels elaboration precision until we get to  specificity which is not have strapped anymore where would you place such a line in this case i think the easiest way to answer that question is simply to look at claim one which is really all we need to discuss in this case and if you look at play what you will see i think if you look at that last step and if you simply look at where ian said maintaining allows use of said back and forward navigation and yes that's what they say will happen that's what they want to happen that's what they say will happen the rest of the claims however the rest of the claim language which we go to step two is this somebody from that you look at it and they're out there and there are these two claims  limitations are out there in the claim and then all of a sudden there is this result where we maintain data if you use the back and forth buttons and that's you it should make you go back to leroy you go back to morse they talk about cause motives desired result intended result the supreme court for a hundred seventy five years has recognized things like that to be an abstract idea i think that you're talking yourself into direct conflict with the most recent six and the supreme court but you ultimate clause here where they say based on step one step two we make we maintain data and that's the abstract idea i'm not separating it out i'm just saying if you focus on that that's the abstract that's the desired result that requires us of course to look at the claim in its entirety and step by step and if you look at the next two steps you've got one to say i still i started waiting very patiently for an answer to just move first question from you and i don't really understand where you're going with most of what you're saying because the question was a very simple one it was on the spectrum of cases if everything is that it's kernel an abstract idea and then  implementation of that abstract idea where on that spectrum does this case fall and that felt like a softball to you and i just didn't even swing at it so and so i'm i'd like you to go back to her initial question rather than arguing with the court which is what you seem to be doing and i don't think you need to or want to focus on her question and really get to the heart of what it feels to me ought to be a response to that question one way a couple two on a scale of one to ten this being abstract i'd say it over on the ten side of the strax as opposed to the one dead on pat now so if i did a one of the scale i would say this is about eight abstract that would be my answer that question mark and it's because it's so apparent internet it's constant whether it's clean all right so and then we look we look again and we look at the cited provision from the specification i believe that was column nine line sixty that's what they've been talking about what you have in all of the steps including that step is something else i haven't touched upon that is it's just data manipulation this is just a form it's a web set on a page dynamic simply means you can put information in it as opposed to a static page and save the data simply means if i say i have a fifty eight chevy it's got so many miles of this is my driving record i'll get a quote for certain kinds of the spin surance policies that's what the prior art was doing that's what empire art save some but not all of that is you back and forth and what they play at the end of point out is page fourteen of page twenty three and twenty four is that there are no algorithms no mathematical formulas and very little structure they haven't provided you with a system a device or some sort of algorithm they haven't provided us with anything in this specification or these claims that talks to that in fact in their reply brief they put paid to point out about what they also didn't have which just underscores the fact that in that claim and in that specification there is nothing other than an expression of a wish for this result twenty three and twenty four of the great grief they pointed that out i'll just double check that you they were centered on algorithms or a mathematical formula the five zero five contains nothing of the sort picks twenty four they achieve their result that has nothing to do with implementing do anything other than tell you the same things to claim to do which is here's what we're doing here is what we're doing all of that from the prior art and that while uk we maintain we maintain this this this back and forward functionality but there's no indication there's no and they're not integrated you've got these first two elements and then you've got the result that there's no integration about how we do it and a computer just isn't enough i think the games are clear on that murdered your argument you mentioned the limitations in the claims so let me ask determination to the claims is that enough to tie it to the specifications well the first answer no there was no construction needed we never proposed a construction we took the position it was clear on its face in the district court said so and i think that is  perfect is the correct decision these claims are very simple and very clear and to add to your second question i don't think the court necessarily has to go into the details it might prefer from an appellate court but he has taken the time to work a straight through mostly male galv he didn't have the benefit of alex but he's walking through the mayo test and ironically he quoted it in his opinion if you look at a five he quote the limitation from column nine  state just means if i if i put in my age and i go to another page it states the my age that's just maintaining the state that's just saving data and that's just a data manipulation that is not even  it's making really good point and there might be cases in which it is a determines a factor but remind me if you would did they make any argument that would suggest that there was a goes a little bit of what i would say the trial judge and a five talks about this precise provision used to describe what the patent says it helps him as a specification should tell him what the patmos teaching and we're not teaching him when they have the motion on the other three cases which they file is a motion for requiring they criticize the judge if you look at their grief for number one spending too much time on the the abstract which is actually content and column that there's been no record developed before this court for the district court on the impropriety of the order to show cause it's a procedural mechanism for dismissing the plaintiff's case against my client and there is no argument or authority in any of the briefs there was no request for stay at the district court while the general's case was appealed any arguments never guard would be waived at this point and therefore the dismissal with prejudice should be of like preserve food and there's no explanation of how you do it when you're on a church newman and judge moore ask well where does it fall in the spectrum what's the difference if you look at alice and mayo and the other number of cases they say there's a two step process to look at first you determine from the claim is there an abstract idea that is an abstract idea the district court said yes the next step is is there a specific application of that abstract idea to achieve the result there is not and is where does it fall on but i do think that the supreme court was looking at a succession of an increasing number three mutations and recognize that there is a of you look at all of the elements here and you you where would you put the line and i would still put the line up that claim is still only at that first stage of describing an abstract idea there's no specificity like you might have found in deer or or the  have that prior art wasn't explored in detail so why doesn't i've crossed the line because once again if you're just naming it just sort of like the d h in contract case just because you name some element that might have invention is not limited to a specific type of machine says quote hans fifteen lines twenty seven to forty three the method may be faulty performed in hardware or software or any combination it can be carried out by operating on a saying when you do other things easier things you would need to do to maintain the state whatever they are not covered in the claim that it would maintain data even when you move backwards and forwards not you're using backwards and forwards to a direction it doesn't matter in part of the result that even if you go back and forward the state is going to be maintained that's what to make sure i understand the technology that's my understanding and it doesn't tell you anything else doesn't tell you how to switch edge rain and mention earlier in the questions microcode are instructions like software so i mean to say that that therefore shows that this is just a compilation of information to be run on any standard computer is simply wrong that's not what this patent says this patent clearly unforgiving proving the performance of a computer system now that makes it different from these other cases such as it is such as alice or bill's we're not just running algorithms on a standard computer system we're improving that the interface of the user in tilling outperforms by giving the computer more capability so that it's a more efficient if i can just use an analogy the idea of having different windows on a computer screen so that someone can work and multitask on one screen with inputting in different in different windows i don't know who exactly invented that i was easily there's a microsoft product called windows but that's the same basic concept you're improving that computer system by by making it more efficient for user to be able to to do something using that computer system and that is what we're talking about here with this patent that's what it says it does and for purposes of this appeal the and simply using a standard computer systems to do something when i get alice it was i think of it as escrow they called a clearing house where you had shadow accounts and so you made sure that there was enough money in each  account before the transaction close well that doesn't make the computer more efficient that doesn't make the interface more efficient that simply allows you to do something on a computer that it takes longer to do by hand or to have an aspiration the same with bilski bilski was a hedging algorithm those figuring out a way to better avoid risk and it wasn't making the computer more efficient it was just a way to figure out how to pay for the risk now here if if we had had a  patent that said we've got this great new way to compare insurance policies in other words you can compare the price but with you if you've got you know two different prices how do you really compare those and there are some algorithm to grade them or whatever then that would be in the bilski range but that's not what we're doing this this is is allowing you to be more efficient in the use of the computer system by not losing data and we did raise at the at the district court level we  because they had argued and this is a quote from the journals free the title and bulk of the detailed description are subsets of lee unrelated to the claimed invention itself and we said that's wrong and we cited philips so we raised claim construction  term on on various terms one of which was maintain a state we said that you are below that they were arguing that there had to be construction of the word maintaining yes where do you make that are there an actual dispute or clean construction wall yes in the sense that we said they're coming in and saying that this is overly broad general patterns and ignoring the specification in fact that the even there's a gentleman claim construction going back to when judge moore was saying once one term of the claim that you put into dispute we said what of it so i answer the question correctly we didn't say here's a here's a term and this is how it should be construed we said there are various terms said there they're being too broad now did we offer a precise claim constructions no we did not but we said that that they were wrong and the court the court accepted their argument it again i don't want to reserve same thing with the court basically said this covers