With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”); see also Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”). Return Mail attempts to analogize the claims before us to claims that this court has held to be patent-eligible under step 2 in BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We disagree. In those cases, the claimed inventions went beyond “merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet” or computer systems. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259; see also BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351 (<HOLDING>). Here, in contrast, claims 42-44 do not

A: holding claim not directed to patenteligible subject matter because establishing inputs for the equation required done according to wellknown techniques
B: holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention
C: holding that a softwarebased invention that improves the performance of the computer system itself recites patenteligible subject matter alteration in original
D: holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art
C.