Ex Parte Oden et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 15, 2019

11517336 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/517,336 09/08/2006
29053 7590 05/17/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William R. Oden
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TRCP.P0021 US.CPl/208963 2254
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM R. ODEN, MATTHEW D. GALLOWAY,
MONICA A. MURRAY, DANIEL NELSON, and
JOSEPH BAUMGARTNER1
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 59-66, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Thomson Reuters Global
Resources Unlimited Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
BACKGROUND2
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
subscribing to "a web-based application in which a server monitors websites
or publisher's services, to scan and compile predetermined information or
items for downloading to a client, for potential monitoring and tracking
internally by the client." Spec. ,i 2. Claim 59, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
59. A subscription method performed over a computerized
network, comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a publisher's content server, automatic
uploads of content from a plurality of third party
organizations, wherein the content comprises a plurality
of individual data records including law related to an
industry of one or more subscribers and regulations
related to an industry of the one or more subscribers;
storing the content in a database;
organizing, by a program, the database into one or more
channels, wherein the one or more channels are
constructed based on a set of channel rules that group a
subset of the individual data records into a channel based
at least on the individual data records' relation to a
defined industry, and wherein the set of channel rules
group one or more of the individual data records into
more than one channel of the one or more channels based
on the individual data records' relation to more than one
defined industry;
receiving user subscription preferences of a user, wherein
the user subscription preferences identify one or more
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
September 8, 2006 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed April 25, 2017
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed October 12, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief
filed December 12, 2017 ("Reply Br.")
2
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
channels to which the user subscribes and identify user
selected filters;
generating a graphical user interface ( GUI) for the user
and including within the GUI access to the one or more
channels to which the user has subscribed, the GUI at
least provides:
(a) listing at least a portion of the individual data
records according to a set of subscription rules that limit
the listing to individual data records that are organized
into the one or more channels that the user subscription
preferences identify as being a channel to which the user
subscribes,
(b) reducing the amount of individual data records in
the listing by omitting one or more individual data
records from the listing according to a set of filtering
rules based on the user selected filters of the user
subscription preferences, and
( c) accepting input from the user identifying a
disposition of at least some of the listed individual data
records, wherein identifying the disposition comprises:
( 1) receiving a first input from the user
identifying a first individual data record of the
listed individual data records as being of interest,
(2) receiving a second input from the user
identifying a second individual data record of the
listed individual data records as being not of
interest, and
(3) receiving a third input from the user
identifying a third individual data record of the
listed individual data records as being resolved;
transferring each individual data record dispositioned by the
user as being of interest to an issue tracking and monitoring
software application operatively connected to the GUI; and
changing the GUI at least in response to the disposition of
individual data records.
3
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
Appeal Br. 13-14 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION
Claims 59-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4-8.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Claims 59-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 1 OJ
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
"' ... Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable."' Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014)
(quotingAss'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of these
excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The
framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is "directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then
4
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
examine "the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217 ( quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an "inventive
concept," "an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (alteration
in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Patent Office recently issued guidance regarding this framework.
See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under the Revised
Guidance, to decide whether a claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we
evaluate whether the claim ( 1) recites subject matter falling within an
abstract idea grouping listed in the Revised Guidance and (2) fails to
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea,
as noted above, we then determine whether the claim recites an inventive
concept. The Revised Guidance explains that when making this
determination, we should consider whether the additional claim elements
add "a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" or "simply append[]
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellants argue claims 59-66 together as a group. See Appeal Br.
3-12; Reply Br. 1-4. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R.
5
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we limit our discussion to independent claim 59.
Dependent claims 60-66 stand or fall with independent claim 59.
With these principles in mind, we tum to the Examiner's § 101
rejection.
The Judicial Exception-Abstract Idea
The Examiner determined the claims are directed to "monitoring
publisher content to compile information or items for downloading to a
client," which comprises an abstract idea-an idea of itself, organizing
human activity, and advertising and sales activities. Final Act. 6. For the
reasons explained below, we agree that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 59 recites, in pertinent part, a method comprising the following
steps (with language contributing to the abstract idea emphasized):
[ ( 1)] receiving, at a publisher's content server, automatic
uploads of content from a plurality of third party organizations,
wherein the content comprises a plurality of individual data
records including law related to an industry of one or more
subscribers and regulations related to an industry of the one or
more subscribers;
[(2)] storing the content in a database;
[(3)] organizing, by a program, the database into one or more
channels, wherein the one or more channels are constructed
based on a set of channel rules that group a subset of the
individual data records into a channel based at least on the
individual data records' relation to a defined industry, and
wherein the set of channel rules group one or more of the
individual data records into more than one channel of the one
6
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
or more channels based on the individual data records 'relation
to more than one defined industry;
[(4)] receiving user subscription preferences of a user, wherein
the user subscription preferences identify one or more channels
to which the user subscribes and identify user selected filters;
[(5)] generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for the user
and including within the GUI access to the one or more
channels to which the user has subscribed, the GUI at least
provides:
(a) listing at least a portion of the individual data records
according to a set of subscription rules that limit the listing to
individual data records that are organized into the one or more
channels that the user subscription preferences identify as being a
channel to which the user subscribes,
(b) reducing the amount of individual data records in the listing by
omitting one or more individual data records from the listing
according to a set of filtering rules based on the user selected
filters of the user subscription preferences, and
( c) accepting input from the user identifying a disposition of at
least some of the listed individual data records, wherein identifying
the disposition comprises:
( 1) receiving a first input from the user identifying a first
individual data record of the listed individual data records
as being of interest,
(2) receiving a second input from the user identifying a
second individual data record of the listed individual data
records as being not of interest, and
(3) receiving a third input from the user identifying a third
individual data record of the listed individual data records
as being resolved;
[(6)] transferring each individual data record dispositioned by
the user as being of interest to an issue tracking and monitoring
software application operatively connected to the GUI; and
[(7)] changing the GUI at least in response to the disposition of
individual data records.
7
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
Appeal Br. 13-14 ( Claims App 'x) (bracketed limitation numbering added).
Limitations (1)-(4), (5)(a)-(c), and (6) of claim 1, quoted and
emphasized above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite
gathering, storing, organizing, and transferring data. In particular,
limitations (1), (4), and 5(c) recite receiving data from third party
organizations (limitation (1 )) and users (limitations ( 4) and 5( c )). Limitation
(2) recites storing the gathered data, and limitations (3), 5(a), and 5(b) recite
organizing the stored data by industry (limitation (3)) and based on filtering
input from the user (limitations 5(a) and 5(b )).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
cover steps that, but for the recitation of the "content server" and
"program"/"software application operatively connected to the GUI," could
be performed in the mind or with pencil and paper. Similar claims have
been found ineligible by the Federal Circuit. For example, the Federal
Circuit continues to "'treat[] analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, ... without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category."' Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
When claimed in a manner similar to the claims here, gathering and
analyzing information using conventional techniques has been determined to
be an abstract idea. In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
612-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, more recently, our reviewing court has also
concluded that some acts of collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and
displaying data are patent ineligible. Univ. of Fl. Research Found., Inc. v.
General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing
8
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017); Elec. Power, 830 F.3dat 1353-54).
Accordingly, we conclude the claims recite concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement opinion)
which is a mental process identified in the Revised Guidance, and thus an
abstract idea. 3 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing "[m]ental
processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)").
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, we determine whether the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s ); and (b) evaluating
those additional elements individually and in combination to determine
whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. If the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim
is not directed to the judicial exception.
3 Our reviewing court recognizes that "[ a ]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction." Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, "impact the patentability analysis." Id. at 1241. "The Board's slight
revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis." Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not
render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math)
to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see
also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ( determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
9
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
Here, claim 59 recites the additional elements of "database," "content
server," "program"/"software application operatively connected to the GUI,"
"generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for the user and including
within the GUI access to the one or more channels to which the user has
subscribed," and "changing the GUI at least in response to the disposition of
individual data records." Appeal Br. 13-14 (Claims App'x). Considering
claim 59 as a whole, the additional elements do not apply or use the abstract
idea in a meaningful way such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The Supreme Court
guides that the "prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment' or [by] adding 'insignificant postsolution
activity."' Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 191-92 (1981)).
The Specification describes each of these elements as generic
components. For example, the Specification states that the content server,
server 120, may include a processor 121, which "may be a general data
processing unit," and other generic components. Spec. ,i,i 66-69. The
recited "database can be a computer searchable database and may be a
relational database." Id. ,i 63. And the Specification explains that
"processing operations may be realized by dedicated hardware, or may be
realized as programs including code instructions executed on data processing
units." Id. ,i 76. Finally, the Specification states:
the graphics user interface ( GUI) is a client application written
to run on existing computer operating systems which may be
ported to other personal computer (PC) software, personal
digital assistants (PD As), and cell phones, and any other digital
10
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
device that has a screen or visual component and appropriate
storage capability.
Id. iJ 57.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us claim 1 is "directed to"
a patent-eligible concept. For example, Appellants argue "the terminology
recited in the claims are in line with examples provided by the Federal
Circuit Court as being patent eligible subject matter in the field of computer
technology." Appeal Br. 4 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.,
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). According to Appellants, "the
claimed [ channel] rules result in a technological improvement over existing,
manual techniques" by saving on time and labor and resulting inaccuracies
in data. Id. at 4-9 (citing Spec. ,i,i 3-4); Reply Br. 3.
We do not agree with Appellants' analogy to McRO. Here, the recited
channels are described as "contain[ing] a specific kind of data that the
program 125 has packaged together - similar to a radio station that offers
jazz, or rock, or classical music." Spec. ,i 80. Outside the claims, however,
the Specification does not use the word "rules. "4 From the claims, we know
that "channels are constructed based on a set of channel rules that group a
subset of the individual data records into a channel based at least on the
individual data records' relation to a defined industry." Appeal Br. 13
(Claims App'x). However, unlike McRO where the claimed process uses
4 We have not considered, and do not decide, whether Appellants'
Specification satisfies the written description and enablement requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a). The Examiner may wish to consider these issues in
further prosecution. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects
not to do so. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP)
§ 1213.02 (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018)).
11
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
particular information and techniques to improve manual three-dimensional
animation techniques, we see nothing in the Specification that describes the
details of channel rules-which simply group information into categories-
or how they are implemented. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Moreover, the "technological improvements" referred to by
Appellants are not tied to channel rules, but instead are attributed to "a
comprehensive, automated, and accurate way to locate items or issues that
are of importance to a company." In fact, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Final Act. 2; Ans. 7), these improvements are the typical improvements
expected by automating a manual process using a computer. There is no
indication that any increase in efficiency or accuracy comes from the recited
process itself. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citing Bancorp Services,
LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.")); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indemnity Co., 711 F. App'x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
("Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files
and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer 'do[]
not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."'
(alteration in original) (citation omitted)).
Appellants similarly point to the recited "subscription rules" and
"filtering rules," as having "specific characteristics." Appeal Br. 9. These
rules, however, like the "channel rules," are only referred to in the claims.
"[S]ubscription rules" are said to "limit the listing to individual data records
12
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
that are organized into the one or more channels that the user subscription
preferences identify as being a channel to which the user subscribes" and
"filtering rules" are "based on the user selected filters of the user
subscription preferences" and are used to "reduc[ e] the amount of individual
data records in the listing." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x). Unlike McRO,
the Specification does not describe the details of these rules or how they are
implemented and does not tie the rules to any particular technological
improvement. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Appellants also point to the recited customized GUI as providing a
"significant technological improvement to the organization, accuracy, speed,
adaptability, and communication of the manual version of this process."
Appeal Br. 10. However the Specification does not describe the
implementation details of the GUI with any particular detail and, as such,
presumes that user interfaces that provide the recited functions are already
available. See Spec. ,i,i 53, 57, 61 (the only paragraphs of the Specification
referring to user interface). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that
claims that recite a graphical user interface may not encompass eligible
subject matter if they "are focused on providing information ... in a way
that helps [users] process information more quickly ... , not on improving
computers or technology." Trading Techs. Int 'l, Inc. v. !BG LLC, Case No.
2017-2323, 2019 WL 1907236, *4 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2019)
Finally, Appellants argue "claim 59 is novel and nonobvious, when
the claim is considered as a whole and as an ordered combination of
elements, the claim is not a longstanding, well known method." Appeal
Br. 11. However, "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or
even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the
13
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly
patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Diehr,
450 U.S. at 188-89).
Accordingly, even in combination with all the other recited elements,
the addition of "database," "content server," "program"/"software
application operatively connected to the GUI," "generating a graphical user
interface ( GUI) for the user and including within the GUI access to the one
or more channels to which the user has subscribed," and "changing the GUI
at least in response to the disposition of individual data records" does not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For these
reasons, we determine that claim 59 does not integrate the recited abstract
idea into a practical application.
Inventive Concept
Because we agree with the Examiner that claim 59 is "directed to" an
abstract idea, we consider whether an additional element ( or combination of
elements) adds a limitation that is not well-understood, routine, conventional
("WURC") activity in the field or whether the additional elements simply
append WURC activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 23. The Examiner's finding that an additional element ( or
combination of elements) is WURC activity must be supported with a
14
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
factual determination. Id. ( citing MPEP § 2106.05( d), as modified by the
Berkheimer Memorandum5).
Whether the additional elements ("database," "content server,"
"program"/"software application operatively connected to the GUI," and
"generating a graphical user interface (GUI) for the user and including
within the GUI access to the one or more channels to which the user has
subscribed") are WURC activity is a question of fact. See Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Whether something is well-
understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan ... is a factual
determination."). On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that
the claims on appeal add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not "well-understood, routine, [ and] conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Other than asserting that the entirety of the claimed
subject matter is nonobvious, Appellants do not point to any particular
claimed element that does not qualify as WURC. Appeal Br. 11.
In fact, Appellants' Specification demonstrates the WURC nature of
the additional elements because it indicates they may be implemented with
generic devices. Spec. ,-J,-J 52-78. In addition, courts have recognized that
receiving or transmitting data over a network, in a manner similar to that
recited in the claims, is WURC. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
( computer receives and sends information over a network).
5 Robert W. Bahr, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc.) (Apr. 9, 2018) (hereinafter "Berkheimer Memorandum").
15
Appeal 2018-001828
Application 11/517,336
For these reasons, we conclude that claim 59, considered as a whole,
does not include an inventive concept.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent
claim 59. We also sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 60-66,
for which Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to
claim 59. Appeal Br. 3-12; Reply Br. 1-4.
CONCLUSION
We conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 59-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 59-66.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
16