Ex Parte Studnitzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14074666 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/074,666 11/07/2013
12684 7590 09/27/2018
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ari Studnitzer
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.
4672-13013AUS 7645
EXAMINER
GAW,MARKH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARI STUDNITZER, ZACHARY BONIG, RYAN EA VY,
and
FRANK KMIEC
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666 1
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a financial instrument trading system and method.
(Spec. ,r 1 ).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system for managing communication of a plurality of
sequentially transmitted financial data messages to a plurality
of market participants via a network, each of the plurality of
sequentially transmitted financial data messages comprising
data indicative of a change in state of an electronic marketplace
for one or more financial products, the system comprising:
a first logic hardware component operative to receive
preference data from at least one of the plurality of market
participants and store the preference data in the memory in
association with data representative of the market participant
from which it was received, the preference data specifying one
or more modifications to be made to each of the plurality of
sequentially transmitted financial data messages prior to
transmission to the associated market participant via the
network;
2
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
a second logic hardware component operative to, based on a
change of state in the electronic marketplace, generate a
financial data message comprising content representative
thereof;
a third logic hardware component operative to receive the
financial data message and generate, for each market participant
having preference data stored in association therewith in the
memory, a modified financial data message based on the
generated financial data message modified in accordance with
the stored associated preference data for the associated market
participant, both the generated financial data message and the
modified financial data message comprising content
representative of the change of state in the electronic
marketplace which caused the generated financial data message
to be generated; and
a fourth logic hardware component operative to transmit, via
the network, each modified financial data message to the
associated market participant for which the modified data
message was generated, and transmit the unmodified generated
financial data message to the others of the plurality of market
participants who did not have preference data stored in the
memory in association therewith, all of the plurality of market
participants thereby receiving content representative of the
change of state in the electronic marketplace which caused the
generated financial data message to be generated.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Weber et al.
Jenkins
US 2004/0186803 Al
US 2009/0171723 Al
3
Sept. 23, 2004
July 2, 2009
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
Erlanger US 2011/0047098 Al Feb.24,2001
Oklahoma State University ("Logic+ Components"
http://www.okstate.edu/sas/v8/sashtml/qsim/chap2/sect4.htm. SAS
Institute Inc. Jan 8, 2007 ("OSU").
Wikipedia, "Central processing unit",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_processing_unit. Feb 27, 2009.
("CPU").
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as being
indefinite.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Weber, OSU, and CPU.
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-16, 18 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Weber in view of CPU.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weber, CPU, and further in view Jenkins.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Weber in view of CPU and further in view of Erlanger.
4
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-5 of the
Final Action directed to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Specifically, the Examiner found that claim 21 2
includes the following elements: "sequentially transmitted []financial
data".. . These elements appear to have no support in the original abstract,
specification or drawings." (Final Act. 5).
In response, Appellants offer several instances in the Specification
which describe sequential transmission of data messages. (Appeal Br. 15-
18).
We agree with Appellants. In particular, we find that the
Specification at paragraph 168 describing, "customizations are applied, as
described below, at the time the market data is generated to generate both
the generic/standard market data messages and customized market data
2 Although the Examiner cites to claim 21 as the example claim which
recites the problematic language (Final Act. 5), we note that all independent
claims 1, 2, 12 and 22 contain same language which the Examiner finds
problematic with claim 21.
5
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
messages", shows Appellants had possession of the claimed "sequentially
transmitted []financial data" because plural customizations would require
data to be generated in time which would by definition be sequential. See
Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, (Fed. Cir. 1997).
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
Each of independent claims 1, 2, 12, and 22, requires in one form or
another,
transmit, via the network, each modified financial data
message to the associated market participant for which
the modified data message was generated, and transmit
the unmodified generated financial data message to the
others of the plurality of market participants who did not
have preference data stored in the memory in association
therewith, all of the plurality of market participants
thereby receiving content representative of the change of
state in the electronic marketplace which caused the
generated financial data message to be generated.
The Examiner found that Weber discloses this limitation at paragraph
42. (Final Act. 8).
Our review of Weber at paragraph 42 reveals a "price feed 143
provides pricing information ( e.g., bid and ask prices) for a set of securities
that preferably includes each security in the fund portfolio." Here, Weber
does not disclose tailoring a data message between participants who want a
modified message and those who do not.
6
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
The Examiner also cites to paragraphs 13 and 14 of Weber to meet the
"receiving of preference data" limitation. (Final Act. 7). But, our review of
Weber, at these paragraphs, finds Weber only discloses "each fund
sensitivity coefficient specifies the exposure of the fund to one of the risk
factors, and using computer means to create a proxy portfolio having
substantially the same sensitivity coefficients as the fund." Weber ,r 13.
The coefficients thus are common only to an individual's specific proxy
portfolio and not a marketplace, which does not meet the claimed "change in
state of an electronic marketplace" for one or more financial products.
Paragraph 20 of Weber, discloses "a graphical user interface,
including a graphical dial, slide bar, or other graphical indicator for adjusting
user inputs." But, these inputs only relate to "factors to be used in the
model" (Weber i-f20), and not to the change of state in the electronic
marketplace which caused the generated financial data message to be
generated. It is not apparent, and the Examiner does not show how
preferences to set a model configuration would be used to modify messages
relating to an electronic marketplace. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejections of independent claims 1, 2, 12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since claims 3-11, 13-21 depend from one of claims 2 and 12, and
since none the additional art relied in the further in view of rejections
remedies the deficiency above, the rejection of claims 3-11, and 13-21
likewise cannot be sustained.
7
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First ...
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts .... If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat
else is there in the claims before us?" . . . To answer that
question . . . consider 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. . . . [The Court]
described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive
concept'"-i.e., 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 Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73
(2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
Although the Court in Alice made a finding as to what the claims were
directed to, we determine that the plain language of the claims and the
Specification provide enough information to inform one as to what they are
directed.
8
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
The representative claim 1 results in3:
[A] fourth logic hardware component operative to
transmit, via the network, each modified financial data message
to the associated market participant for which the modified data
message was generated, and transmit the unmodified generated
financial data message to the others of the plurality of market
participants who did not have preference data stored in the
memory in association therewith, all of the plurality of market
participants thereby receiving content representative of the
change of state in the electronic marketplace which caused the
generated financial data message to be generated.
The Examiner found that the "claims are directed to an abstract idea
of performing financial data modification and transmission." (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner also found:
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination,
together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the
functions of the elements when each is taken alone. That is, the
elements involved in the recited process undertake their roles in
performance of their activities according to their generic
functionalities which are well-understood, routine and
conventional.
Id. at 3. The Specification states:
Typically, the Exchange provides for centralized 'clearing' by
which all trades are confirmed and matched, and open positions
are settled each day until expired ( such as in the case of an
option), offset or delivered. Matching, which is a function
typically performed by the Exchange, is a process, for a given
3 Our analysis is made based on considering the claims as a whole, but for
purposes of this discussion, we note the result phrase of the independent
claim to point to what the claims are directed to.
9
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
order which specifies a desire to buy or sell a quantity of a
particular instrument at a particular price, of seeking/identifying
one or more wholly or partially, with respect to quantity,
satisfying counter orders thereto, e.g. a sell counter to an order
to buy, or vice versa, for the same instrument at the same, or
sometimes better, price (but not necessarily the same quantity),
which are then paired for execution to complete a trade between
the respective market participants (via the Exchange) and at
least partially satisfy the desired quantity of one or both of the
order and/or the counter order, with any residual unsatisfied
quantity left to await another suitable counter order, referred to
as 'resting.'
Spec. 2. The Specification also states:
Accordingly, the operators of electronic trading systems, alone
or in conjunction with, or at the direction of, regulatory or
industry organizations, typically publish or otherwise
promulgate rules or regulations, referred to as business or
operating rules, which govern the operation of the system.
These rules define how, for example, multiple transactions are
processed by the system where those transactions have
relationships or dependencies there between which may affect
the result of such processing. Such business rules may include,
for example, order allocation rules, i.e. rules which dictate
which of multiple competing resting orders will be matched
with a particular incoming order counter thereto having
insufficient quantity to fill all of the suitable resting orders. For
example, under a first-in-first-out methodology, the first order,
of the competing resting orders, that was received by the
electronic trading system will be matched with the incoming
counter-order and filled to the extent possible by the available
quantity, with any residual quantity of the incoming counter
order then being allocated to the next received suitable
competing resting order and so on until the available quantity of
10
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
the incoming counter order is exhausted. However, additional
or alternative matching/allocation rules may be implemented as
well, for example to ensure fair and equal access, improve
trading opportunities, etc., by allocating, such as proportionally,
the available quantity of the incoming counter order among all,
or a subset, of the competing resting orders until the available
quantity is exhausted.
Spec. ,r 9.
The Specification describes,
[ f]inancial messages communicated to the electronic trading
system, also referred to as "inbound" messages, may include
request messages, such as trader orders, order modifications,
order cancellations and other transaction requests, as well as
other message types.
Spec. ,r 64.
It follows from prior Supreme Court cases, and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63 (1972), in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed to
causing a message to be generated and transmitted to market participants in
the preferred format of the participant concerning the change of state in an
electronic marketplace. Causing a message to be generated and transmitted
to market participants in the preferred format of the participant concerning
the change of state in an electronic marketplace is a fundamental economic
principle because understanding market movement in the most
understandable way possible is the bedrock of investing. The patent-
ineligible end of the spectrum includes fundamental economic practices,
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
11
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
Also, we also agree with the Examiner that many of the steps in
representative claim 1, such as, "receive preference data from at least one of
the plurality of market participants and store the preference data in the
memory in association with data representative of the market participant
from which it was received," and "based on a change of state in the
electronic marketplace, generat[ing] a financial data message comprising
content representative thereof," constitute "analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) ( claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual
relations are directed to abstract ideas). Thus, causing a message to be
generated and transmitted to market participants in the preferred format of
the participant concerning the change of state in an electronic marketplace is
an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of § 101.
As in Alice, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the
"abstract ideas" category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is
no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction between the concept of
an intermediated settlement, as discussed in Alice, and the concept of
causing a message to be generated and transmitted to market participants in
the preferred format of the participant concerning the change of state in an
electronic marketplace factor, at issue here. Both are squarely within the
12
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
realm of "abstract ideas" as the Court has used that term. That the claims do
not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be limited to market alerts,
do not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ("And that the
claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.").
Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, transmission,
calculation and linkage, and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation").
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the
analysis at Alice step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it"' is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."'
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a
computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[ t ]" an abstract idea
"on . . . a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the pre-emption
13
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of "additional
featur[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice, at 2358 (alterations in original) (internal citations omitted). Instead,
"the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply
instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea ... on a generic
computer." Id. at 2359. They do not.
Taking the claim elements individually, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query, computation and
retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these
computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the trading industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d
1354; see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d
1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of
the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be
achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming").
In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process
of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a
particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
14
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
other than abstract." SAP Am. Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' method add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
access/ display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be
abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display,
allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was
abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic
equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the
particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the
concept of information access under different scenarios. See, e.g., Spec. ,r
108, ( disclosing generically how "electronic trading system 100 implements
numerous functions/functional modules each of which, as will be described,
15
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
may be implemented in software, hardware or a combination thereof, as
single standalone component or combination of interconnected components
or in combination with another function/functional module," perform
conventional functions.) Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing
significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea of information
access and computation using some unspecified, generic computer. Under
our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, at 2360.
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 6-14; Reply Br. 2-
8) Appellants have submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims
before us that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our
analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments which
have been made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
specific contentions in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellants argue:
The claims represent a specific improvement to the
technology of managing communications concerning
changes in state of an electronic marketplace and
ensuring that, while all market participants receive the
same market information, particular participant receive
that same information in a particular form according to
their preferences, and an improvement to the technical
field surrounding such communications concerning
communicating information in an electronic transaction
processing system.
Appeal Br. 8.
16
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
We disagree with Appellants. The question is whether the claims as a
whole "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea
and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837 F.3d at
1314 . In this case, claim 1 as a whole is focused on satisfying certain
contingencies for the effect of transmitting a "modified financial data
message comprising content representative of the change of state in the
electronic marketplace." "[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an
abstract idea." See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellants argue:
[T]he combination of elements in Appellants' claims
form a practical application which performs functions
which are not merely generic and at least some of the
problems solved by Appellants' invention are specifically
rooted in technology, specifically in electronic
transaction processing systems where data indicative of
an event, e.g. a change in state, is communicated to
multiple recipients but where some recipients may wish
to receive those communications in accordance with
particular preferences.
(Appeal Br. 10-11).
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner found, and we agree,
that "the elements of the instant process, when taken in combination,
together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the
elements when each is taken alone." Final Act 3. We find no evidence in
17
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
the record suggesting that the claims at issue amount to significantly more
than instructions to apply the abstract idea of information access and
computation using some unspecified, generic computer. As to Appellants'
contention that because the claims form "a practical application" in
connection with non-generic functions, we decline to accept this standard
and reference instead our findings above based on the Alice two-step
analysis. Furthermore, we understand the Examiner, through citation to the
July 2015 Update (Answer 7), to rely on prior court decisions finding that
certain computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional
functions. These prior court decisions adequately support this finding to
satisfy the requirement to set forth a prima facie case of unpatentability
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Citing to Enfzsh 4 , Appellants further argue, "Software can make non-
abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware
improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished
through either route." (Appeal Br. 12).
We disagree with Appellants because "[ s ]tating an abstract idea while
adding the words 'apply it with a computer' simply combines those two
steps, with the same deficient result." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 (quoting
Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297).
Moreover, the test is whether the claims focus on a specific means or
4 "See Enfish, LLC vs. Microsoft Corp., 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12,
2016), page 11." Appeal Br. 12.
18
Appeal2017-006617
Application 14/074,666
method that improves the relevant technology, or are instead directed to a
result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
processes and machinery. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here we find that the claims are directed to the
effect of, causing a message to be generated and transmitted to market
participants in the preferred format of the participant concerning the change
of state in an electronic marketplace, and not to any improvement in the
relevant technology, e.g. chip architecture improvements.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
19