With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". misapprehends the law, and fails to describe sufficient transformation to render the claims patent-eligible applications. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. The claims cited by Plaintiff incorporating quantitative analysis, (Docket No. 18-2 at 15:59-60), discussing “statistical or data mining techniques,” (Id. at 15:61-64), defining the type of data to consider, (Id. at 16:1-4), or identifying the type of database to be used, (Id. at 16:20-21), all fail to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. See e.g., Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357; OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (“well-understood, routine conventional activities],” are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at 1368 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the ’519 Patent is

A: holding that a database is a generic computer element
B: holding that liquid controls is generic
C: holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
D: holding that light beer is generic
A.