prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did the court in In re Ferguson conclude about the transformation prong of the Bilski test?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Xpp-pdf support utility
Xpp-pdf support utility
PATENT, TRADEMARK
& COPYRIGHT !
Reproduced with permission from BNA’s Patent,Trademark 11/20/09, 11/20/2009  Copyright ஽ 2009 by The Bu-reau of National Affairs, Inc  (800-372-1033) http://www bna com As the patent community anticipates a decision by the U S  Supreme Court on subject matter patentability, recent rulings by the Federal Circuit and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences suggest strategies for preparing method patent applications that will sur- vive the Federal Circuit’s ‘‘machine-or-transformation’’ test 
The Changing Landscape of Method Claims in the Wake of In re Bilski:What We Can Learn from Recent Decisions of Federal Courts and the Board ofPatent Appeals rulings on software-based and other business methodpatent applications 
On review before the high court is the en banc ruling ‘‘Pure’’ business methods are out  Algorithms by the U S  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1 are out  Machines and data transformations that, in order to be eligible for patent protection, an in- ventive method must either be tied to a machine or re- While the patent community waits for the Supreme cite a transformation of an article 2 This ‘‘machine-or- Court’s decision in Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964 (U S 
transformation’’ test replaced the Freeman-Walter- argued Nov  9, 2009) (79 PTCJ 33, 11/13/09), patent ap- Abele3 test and the ‘‘useful, concrete and tangible plicants seeking to write patentable claims are stuckwith trying to conform to the lower courts’ most recent 1 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed  Cir 
2008) (en banc) (77 PTCJ 4, 11/7/08) 
2 ‘‘The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched Adriana Suringa Luedke and Bridget M  Hay- inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies den are lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney, Min- § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular neapolis  Luedke can be reached at machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article ’’ leudke adriana@dorsey com  Hayden can be reached at hayden bridget@dorsey com  3 In re Freeman, 573 F 2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (C C P A 
1978); In re Walter, 618 F 2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (C C P A 
COPYRIGHT ஽ 2009 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC 
result’’ inquiry advocated in State Street,4 each of gregating, and selling real estate property and claims which had been applied by the Federal Circuit and its reciting a method of performing tax-deferred real estate predecessor court in various cases, and both of which property exchanges were not statutory under Section 101  Since no machine was recited, the only issue be- In this article, we examine the 2008 decision of the fore the court was whether the claims met the ‘‘trans- Federal Circuit, federal district court decisions, and de- formation’’ prong of the Bilski test 13 The court held cisions of Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of that the claims ‘‘involve[d] only the transformation or Patent Appeals and Interferences  Based upon the out- manipulation of legal obligations and relationships’’ comes in these cases, we offer guidance as to what is that did not qualify under Bilski 14 patent-eligible under 35 U S C  § 101, strategies for pre- Concerning the recitation of the ‘‘creation of deed- senting methods in patent applications and claiming shares’’ in some of the claims, the court found that the these methods, and possible ‘‘fixes’’ for applications deedshares themselves were not physical objects, but drafted pre-Bilski that must now withstand scrutiny un- only represented intangible legal ownership interests in der the new machine-or-transformation test 
property 15 Therefore, the creation of deedshares wasnot sufficient to establish patent eligibility under Bil- A number of recent federal court and board decisions have applied the patent eligibility test set forth in Bilski, implemented step to an otherwise obvious method was not sufficient to avoid invalidity of the claim  In KingPharmeuticals Inc  v  Eon Labs Inc ,17 the district court held invalid claims to a method of increasing the oral Several cases have addressed (and rejected) claims bioavailability of metaxalone because the claims were obvious over the prior art asserted by the accused in- In In re Ferguson,6 the Federal Circuit reviewed the board’s rejection of claims directed to a method of mar- Two dependent claims added a step of informing the keting a product and a ‘‘paradigm’’ for marketing soft- patient of certain results, which the patentee argued ware as nonstatutory subject matter under Section was not obvious  The court rejected this argument, con- 101 7 The appellate court affirmed the board’s rejection, cluding that ‘‘[b]ecause the food effect is an inherent concluding that the method claims were neither tied to property of the prior art and, therefore, unpatentable, a particular machine or apparatus nor did they trans- then informing a patient of that inherent property is form a particular article into a different state or thing 8 The court defined a machine broadly as ‘‘a concrete The court also commented that the added step of in- thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices or com- forming the patient did not meet the patent eligibility binations of devices,’’ which did not include the ‘‘shared standard set forth in Bilski because the step did not re- marketing force’’ to which the method claims were quire use of a machine or transform the metaxalone into a different state or thing 19 Notably, this conclusion The claims directed to a ‘‘paradigm’’ were non- runs counter to the Supreme Court’s instruction that statutory because the claims did not fall within any of claims are to be examined ‘‘as a whole’’ and not dis- the four statutory categories (machines, manufactures, sected into old and new elements and that are evaluated compositions of matter and processes)  Concerning the two closest possible categories, the court concluded Recent board decisions have been consistent with the that the claimed paradigm was not a process, because holdings of the federal courts  For example, in Ex parte no act or series of acts was required, and was not a Roberts,21 the board found ineligible under Section 101 manufacture, because it was not a tangible article re- a ‘‘method of creating a real estate investment instru- sulting from a process of manufacture 10 Concerning ment adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges’’ the recitation of a ‘‘marketing company’’ in the para- because the claim did not satisfy either the machine or digm claims, the court concluded that the patent appli- cants did ‘‘no more than provide an abstract idea—a Similarly, in Ex parte Haworth,23 a method for ‘‘at- business model for an intangible marketing com- tempting to collect payments from customers having delinquent accounts concurrently with a partner that In Fort Properties Inc  v  American Master Lease owns the delinquent accounts’’ was found to be patent LLC,12 the California district court held that claims re- ineligible because the claim wording was ‘‘broad in that citing a series of transactions involving acquiring, ag- 1980); In re Abele, 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A 
4 State Street Bank & Trust Co  v  Signature Financial 16 See Ex parte Roberts , 2009-004444 at 4-5 (B P A I  June Group, 149 F 3d 1368, 1370, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed  Cir  1998) 19, 2009) (holding a ‘‘method of creating a real estate invest- ment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred ex- changes’’ patent ineligible as not passing the machine-or- 7 The court accepted the board’s definition of ‘‘paradigm’’ 17 593 F  Supp 2d 501 (E D N Y  2009) 
to mean ‘‘a pattern, example or model ’’ Id  at 1362 
20 See Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 188 (1981) 
21 No  2009-004444 (B P A I  June 19, 2009) 
12 2009 WL 249205, *5 (C D  Cal  Jan  22, 2009) 
23 No  2009-000350 (B P A I  July 30, 2009) 
it refers generally to extending an offer, receiving an machine  Accordingly, the process claims       are not acceptance, and paying a commission’’ and did not in- voke, recite or limit the method of implementation us-ing any particular machine or apparatus 24 The court also evaluated similar claims that recited the use of a ‘‘comparator’’ to perform the recited pixel- B  Software Claims Not Expressly Tied to a ‘Particular by-pixel comparison and held that this recitation also did not mandate a machine 29 While the court acknowl-edged that software was offered as one ‘‘option,’’ the Other cases have addressed software methods where court concluded that the claimed function of the com- the claim language was either not expressly tied to com- parator could also be performed in one’s mind or on pa- puter hardware components or the ties to computer per such that a machine was not required  The court components were somewhat ambiguous  In several further noted that, even though the ‘‘comparator’’ was cases, courts have rejected the recitation of generic defined as a ‘‘device,’’ ‘‘the use of the term ‘device’ is computer components as sufficient to satisfy the ‘‘ma- not synonymous with machine ’’30 As a result, none of chine’’ prong of the Bilski test  A number of these deci- the claims at issue met the ‘‘machine’’ prong of the Bil- sions also addressed the ‘‘transformation’’ prong of the Concerning the ‘‘transformation’’ prong, the court re- In Research Corporation Technology Inc  v  Mi- lied in particular upon the Abele decision in expanding crosoft Corp ,25 the district court considered the patent the requirements of this test by requiring that the eligibility of method claims in six patents directed to claimed transformation process be both ‘‘(1) limited to methods of halftoning of gray scale images by using a transformation of specific data, and 2) limited to a vi- pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue sual depiction representing specific objects or sub- noise mask  Relying on the Federal Circuit’s Bilski stances ’’31 It then concluded that a number of the analysis as well as a decision of its predecessor court, patent claims did not meet the second prong of this ex- In re Abele,26 the judge concluded that a number of the panded test because the claims did not ‘‘require any vi- sual depiction or subsequent display’’ even though the transformation test set forth in Bilski 27 claimed method did transform specific image data 32 Concerning the ‘‘machine’’ prong, the district court The district court also found other claims patent- found that the pixel-by-pixel comparison recited in the eligible under Section 101 because these claims recited claims did not require the use of a machine, but could the use of the comparison data ‘‘to produce a halftoned ‘‘dictate[d] a transformation of specific data, and [were] be done on a sheet of paper using a pen  The com- further limited to a visual depiction which represents parison uses formulas and numbers to generate a bi- specific objects ’’33 Thus, the patent eligibility of the nary value to determine the placement of a dot at a claims turned on whether the claims recited the use of location  Formulas and numbers not tied to a particu- the transformed data to generate a display 
lar machine cannot be patented, under the machine In DealerTrack Inc  v  Huber,34 the district court prong, even with a field-of-use limitation because granted a summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 they represent fundamental principles, and to do so of patent claims directed to ‘‘a computer aided method’’ would preempt the entire field  The patent claims      
of managing a credit application reciting the following do not mandate the use of a machine to achieve their algorithmic and algebraic ends  Simply because adigital apparatus such as a computer, calculator, or [A] receiving credit application data from a remote the like could assist with this comparison does not render it patent eligible material  RCT’s argument [B] selectively forwarding the credit application data that a pixel by its nature is electronic and therefore to remote funding source terminal devices; necessitates a machine is a post solution argumentand the Court rejects it  The claim construction specifies that the comparison is of a value to a mask 29 The term ‘‘comparator’’ was construed by the court to be (or set of values) to determine whether the dot is a ‘‘device (or collection of operations, as in software) that com- turned on at a specific location  This process does pares an input number (called the operand) to a number pre- not require a particular machine  The Bilski test is stored in the comparator (called the threshold) and produces clear: the process claims must be tied to a particular as output a binary value (such as ‘‘0,’’ zero) if the input is alge-braically less than the threshold [the result of comparing anoperand against a fixed threshold and setting an operand less 24 Id  at 9-10  See also, e g , Ex parte Farnes, 2009-002770 than the threshold to one value and an operand greater than (B P A I  June 2, 2009) (rejecting a method claim for develop- or equal to the threshold to another value], and produces the ing a solution to a customer experience issue including steps opposite binary value (such as ‘‘1,’’ one) if the input is algebra- of: ‘‘identifying a target customer,’’ ‘‘defining a current cus- ically greater than or equal to the threshold ’’ Id  at *17 (em- tomer experience,’’ ‘‘summarizing values and benefits’’ to pro- vide to the customer, and ‘‘identifying metrics for measuring success’’); Ex parte Salinkas, 2009-002768 (B P A I  May 18, 31 Id  at *9  Notably, Bilski concluded that the Abele visual 2009) (finding patent ineligible a method of launching a depiction was ‘‘sufficient’’ to establish transformation (545 knowledge network involving ‘‘selecting an executive spon- F 3d at 963), while the Research Corporation court went fur- sor,’’ ‘‘forming a core team of experts,’’ and ‘‘providing pre- ther by making visual depiction ‘‘required’’ to establish trans- 25 2009 WL 2413623 (D  Ariz  July 28, 2009) (78 PTCJ 432, 26 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A  1982) 
34 2009 WL 2020761 (C D  Cal  July 7, 2009) (78 PTCJ 341, PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL [C] forwarding funding decision data from at least tation of ‘over the Internet’ suffices to tie a process one of the remote funding source terminal de- claim to a particular machine’’ and concluded that it vices to the remote application entry and display The internet continues to exist despite the addition [D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit ap- or subtraction of any particular piece of hardware  It may be supposed that the internet itself, rather than [E] sending at least a portion of a credit application any underlying computer or set of computers, is the to more than one of said remote funding sources ‘‘machine’’ to which plaintiff refers  Yet the internet is an abstraction  If every computer user in the world [F] sending at least a portion of a credit application unplugged from the internet, the internet would to more than one of said remote funding sources cease to exist, although every molecule of every ma- sequentially until a finding [sic ] source returns a chine remained in place  One can touch a computer or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘‘the inter- [G] sending       a credit application       after a prede- Additionally, the court found that the recitation of the [H] sending the credit application from a first remote internet in this case merely constituted ‘‘insignificant funding source to a second remote funding extra-solution activity’’ and therefore did not qualify as a ‘‘particular machine’’ under Bilski 41 ‘‘[T]ossing in In concluding that the claim did not satisfy the Bilski references to internet commerce’’ was not sufficient to machine-or-transformation test, the court held that the render ‘‘a mental process for collecting data and weigh- claimed central processor, remote application and dis- ing values’’ patent-eligible 42 Additionally, ‘‘limiting’’ play device, and remote funding source terminal device the claim to use over the Internet was not a meaningful could be ‘‘any device’’ and did not constitute a ‘‘’par- limitation, such that the claims ‘‘broadly preempt the ticular machine’ within the meaning of Bilski ’’35 The fundamental mental process of fraud detection using court relied upon several board decisions to support its associations between credit cards ’’43 premise that ‘‘claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the test ’’36 claim,44 notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s holding In Cybersource Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc ,37 the in In re Beauregard,45 the district court concluded that district court held claims for ‘‘a method for verifying the ‘‘there is at present no legal doctrine creating a special validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet’’ ‘‘Beauregard claim’’ that would exempt the claim from and ‘‘a computer readable medium containing program the analysis of Bilski ’’ Moreover, ‘‘[s]imply appending instructions for detecting fraud in a credit card transac- ‘A computer readable media including program instruc- tion       over the Internet’’ invalid under § 101 based tions’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- upon the court’s interpretation of Bilski 
sufficient to make it statutory ’’46 Consequently, this Concerning the method claim, the court considered claim also failed the Bilski test 
both the ‘‘transformation’’ and ‘‘machine’’ prongs of the In at least one instance, the U S  International Trade Bilski test  In concluding that there was no transforma- Commission has interpreted the ‘‘machine’’ prong of tion, the court focused on the intangibility of the ma- Bilski less stringently than did the district courts in the nipulated data  According to the court, transformation cases discussed above  In In the Matter of Certain Video is limited to transformation of a physical article or sub- Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Point- stance  Accordingly, the method claim did not qualify ing Devices,47 the accused infringer filed a motion for because the data representing credit cards did not rep- summary judgment alleging that the asserted claims resent tangible articles but instead an intangible series impermissibly sought to patent a mathematical algo- of rights and obligations existing between the account rithm  According to the movant, the recitations of a ‘‘3D pointing device,’’ ‘‘handheld device,’’ or ‘‘free space Concerning whether the claimed method was tied to pointing device’’ were not sufficient to tie the claims to a particular machine, the court assessed whether ‘‘reci- a particular machine, but served ‘‘only to limit the field-of-use of the claimed mathematical algorithm and [did] not otherwise impart patentability on the claimed math- Id  at *3  The court relied upon the holdings in Ex parte Gutta, No  2008-3000 at 5-6 (B P A I  Jan  15, 2009) (stating In denying the motion for summary judgment, the ‘‘[t]he recitation in the preamble of ‘[a] computerized method ITC first noted that, ‘‘[w]hile the ultimate determination performed by a data processor’ adds nothing more than a gen- of whether the asserted claims are patentable under eral purpose computer that is associated with the steps of the § 101 is a question of law, the Federal Circuit has ac- process in an unspecified manner ’’); Ex parte Nawathe, No 
2007-3360, 2009 WL 327520, *4 (B P A I  Feb  9, 2009) (finding‘‘the computerized recitation purports to a general purpose processor [], as opposed to a particular computer specifically programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method ’’); and Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-4742 at 9-10 (B P A I 
Jan  13, 2009) (indicating the appellant does not dispute ‘‘the recitation of a processor does not limit the process steps to any 44 Claims having this format are called ‘‘Beauregard’’ specific machine or apparatus ’’)  The court also cited Cyber- claims and were found to not be barred by the traditional source Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc , (discussed below), in sup- printed matter rule in In re Beauregard, 53 F 3d 1583, 1584, 35 port of its interpretation of the required ‘‘particular machine ’’ 37 620 F  Supp  2d 1068, 92 USPQ2d 1011 (N D  Cal  2009) 47 2009 WL 1070801 (U S I T C  2009) 
knowledged that ‘there may be cases in which the legal given a dataset of feature vectors associated with the question as to patentable subject matter may turn on subsidiary factual issues’ ’’ (citation omitted)  In con- for each binary partition under consideration, rank- struing the claims, the tribunal found that there was a ing features using two-category feature ranking; and genuine dispute as to whether the claimed ‘‘devices’’represented a ‘‘particular machine’’ under the Bilski while the predetermined number of features has not test and whether the claimed ‘‘two-dimensional rota- yet been selected: picking a binary partition p; tional transform’’ was merely a mathematical calcula- selecting a feature based on the ranking for binary tion or instead meant ‘‘changing the mathematical rep- resentation of a two-dimensional quantity from oneframe of reference to a differently-oriented frame of ref- adding the selected feature to an output list if not al- erence’’ as asserted by the patentee  Additionally, the ready present in the output list and removing the se- dispute over the meaning of the claimed ‘‘two- lected feature from further consideration for the bi- dimensional rotational transform’’ also raised a dis- puted issue as to whether this element recited a trans- Notably, while the independent claim failed the formation that would qualify under the ‘‘transforma- machine-or-transformation test, its dependent claim tion’’ prong of Bilski  Given these disputed issues, the was eligible because it recited, ‘‘further comprising us- ITC concluded that it was inappropriate to grant sum- ing the selected features in training a classifier for clas- mary judgment as to the patent eligibility of the claims 
sifying data into categories ’’ In view of the specifica- A similar conclusion was reached in Versata Soft- tion, the board indicated that the ‘‘classifier’’ was a par- ware Inc  v  Sun Microsystems Inc ,48 in which the dis- ticular machine ‘‘in that it performs a particular data trict court denied the defendant’s motion for summary classification function that is beyond mere general pur- judgment of invalidity under Section 101 based upon pose computing ’’53 The board also concluded that the the Bilski court’s refusal ‘‘to adopt a broad exclusion claim ‘‘transforms a particular article into a different over software or any other such category of subject state or thing, namely by transforming an untrained matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to funda- classifier into a trained classifier ’’54 In Ex parte Casati,55 the board reversed the examin- Less stringent ‘‘machine’’ prong analyses are also er’s Section 101 rejection of a method claim reciting: found at the board level  For example, in Ex parteSchrader,50 the board held patent-eligible under Bilski A method of analyzing data and making predictions, reading process execution data from logs for a busi- A method for obtaining feedback from consumers re- ceiving an advertisement from an ad provided by anad provider through an interactive channel, the collecting the process execution data and storing the process execution data in a memory defining a ware-house; creating a feedback panel including at least one feed-back response concerning said advertisement; and analyzing the process execution data; generatingprediction models in response to the analyzing; and providing said feedback panel to said consumers, using the prediction models to predict an occurrence said feedback panel being activated by a consumer to of an exception in the business process 
provide said feedback response concerning said ad-vertisement to said ad provider through said interac- In this case, giving consideration to the specification, which ‘‘unequivocally describes the data warehouse aspart of the overall system apparatus, and subsequent Here, the board found ‘‘interactive channel’’ to be descriptions describe the memory/warehouse device in part of an ‘‘overall patent eligible system of appara- terms of machine executable functions,’’ the board con- tuses’’ when viewed in the context of the specification, cluded that ‘‘one of ordinary skill in the art would un- which included ‘‘the Internet and World Wide Web, In- derstand that the claimed storing of process execution teractive Television, and self service devices, such as In- data in a memory defining a warehouse constitutes formation Kiosks and Automated Teller Machines ’’51 patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 because the In another recent decision, Ex parte Forman,52 the memory/warehouse element ties the claims to a particu- board found a ‘‘computer-implemented feature selec- tion method’’ including a ‘‘classifier’’ eligible under Other recent board decisions have reached the oppo- Section 101 because it satisfied both the machine and transformation prong  Here, the ‘‘classifier’’ was recitedin a dependent claim, in which its independent claim re-cited: 53 Id  at 13 
54 Id  See also Ex parte Busche, No  2008-004750 (B P A I 
A computer-implemented feature selection method May 28, 2009) (holding a process claim and a computer pro- for selecting a predetermined number of features for gram product claim, each reciting training a machine, ‘‘are di- a set of binary partitions over a set of categories rected to machines that have such structure as may be adaptedby training ’’) 55 No  2009-005786 (B P A I  July 31, 2009) 
48 2009 WL 1084412, *1 (E D  Tex  March 31, 2009) 
56 Id  at 7  See also Ex parte Dickerson, No  2009-001172 at 49 Citing Bilski, 545 F 3d at 959 n  23 
16 (B P A I  July 9, 2009) (holding claims that ‘‘recite a comput- 50 No  2009-009098 (B P A I  Aug  31, 2009) 
erized method which includes a step of outputting information from a computer       are tied to a particular machine or appa- 52 No  2008-005348 (B P A I  Aug  17, 2009) 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL implemented methods ineligible under the Bilski test transformation test applied to this type of claim 63 because the claims failed to tie the method steps to any Then, applying the Bilski test, the board concluded that concrete parts, devices, or combinations of devices  For the claim did not qualify  According to the board, the example, in Ex parte Holtz,57 the board found ineligible under Section 101 a ‘‘method for comparing file tree de-scriptions’’ because the claim ‘‘obtains data (a file struc- does not transform physical subject matter and is not ture), compares data (file structures), generates a tied to a particular machine        Limiting the claims change log, and optimizes the change log without tying to computer readable media does not add any practi- these steps to any concrete parts, devices, or combina- cal limitation to the scope of the claim  Such a field- tions of devices’’ and the ‘‘file structures’’ did not repre- of-use limitation is insufficient to render an other- Similarly, in Ex parte Gutta,58 the board held ineli- gible under § 101 a ‘‘method for identifying one or moremean items for a plurality of items       having a sym- II  The Current Scope of Patent Eligibility bolic value of a symbolic attribute,’’ concluding that the These recent cases establish that some types of meth- claim ‘‘computes a variance and selects a mean item ods are clearly patent-eligible under Section 101, others without tying these steps to any concrete parts, devices, clearly are not eligible, and yet others may be depend- or combinations of devices’’ and ‘‘symbolic values are ing on how they are described and claimed 
neither physical objects nor do they represent physicalobjects ’’ First, the eligibility of system and apparatus claims is largely unaffected by the Bilski decision, with the ca- In contrast to the district court’s decision in Cyber- veat that such claims may be more closely scrutinized source Corp , discussed supra, in a recent board deci- for compliance with Diamond v  Diehr and Gottschalk sion, Ex parte Bodin,59 ‘‘a computer program product’’ v  Benson, which prohibit patenting of a claim directed was found to be patent-eligible subject matter as being to ‘‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, [or] abstract embodied in a ‘‘computer readable medium ’’ Here, the board considered whether the phrase ‘‘recorded on the Also, methods that are performed at least in part by a recording medium’’ as it is recited in the body of the machine qualify for patent eligibility under Section 101 
claims was the same as ‘‘recorded on a computer- Thus, for example, some computer-implemented and readable medium ’’ Acknowledging the differences be- software-related inventions remain patentable as long tween a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a as they are properly described and claimed as being computer readable medium compared to a nonstatutory performed by a computer or computer components 
claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected The tie to a machine, however, cannot merely be im- in nonstatutory processes, the board stated: ‘‘[w]hen plicit based upon the description and context of the ap- functional descriptive material is recorded on some plication or general language in the preamble of the computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally claim  Instead, the use of a machine to perform one or and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be more of the claimed functions must be expressly de- statutory in most cases since use of technology permits scribed in the body of the claim so as to be a meaning- the function of the descriptive material to be real- ful limitation on the claim  If a method claim can be read in such a way that all functions can be performed Similarly, in Ex parte Azuma,61 a claim to a ‘‘com- by a human, it will likely not pass the machine prong of puter program product       comprising: a computer us- able medium’’ was found to be directed to statutory The ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluat- subject matter under § 101 because the language ‘‘com- ing Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101’’ re- puter usable medium’’ referred to tangible storage me- cently issued by the Patent and Trademark Office con- dia, such as a server, floppy drive, main memory and firm that the recitation of a general purpose computer hard disk as disclosed by appellant’s specification, and is sufficient to satisfy Section 101 where the general did not ‘‘implicate the use of a carrier wave ’’ purpose computer is ‘‘programmed to perform the pro- In an older decision, Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan,62 cess steps,       in effect, becom[ing] a special purpose however, the Board seemingly came to the opposite conclusion, holding that a claim reciting ‘‘a computer Concerning data transformation, there seems to be readable media including program instructions which agreement of the Federal Circuit and at least one dis- when executed by a processor cause the processor to trict court that a method that is both limited to transfor- perform’’ a series of steps was not patent-eligible under mation of specific data and limited to a visual depiction Bilski  The board first determined that ‘‘analysis of a representing specific objects or substances qualifies un- ‘manufacture’ claim and a ‘process’ claim is the sameunder 63 Id  at 11 
57 No  2008-004440 at 12-13 (B P A I  Aug  24, 2009) 
65 Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 185, 205 USPQ 488 58 No  2008-004366 at 10-11 (B P A I  Aug  10, 2009) 
(1980); Gottschalk v  Benson, 409 U S  63, 67, 175 USPQ 673 59 No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
60 Id  at 10 (comparing In re Lowry, 32 F 3d 1579, 1583-84, 66 ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Sub- 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed  Cir  1994) to In re Warmerdam, 33 F 3d ject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101,’’ U S  Patent and 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed  Cir  1994)) 
Trademark Office, Aug  24, 2009, at 6 (78 PTCJ 530, 8/28/09) 
61 No  2009-003902 at 10 (B P A I  Sept  14, 2009) 
The authors’ recent experiences with examiners suggest that 62 No  2008-004742 (B P A I  Jan  13, 2009) 
the examiners are following these instructions 
der Section 101 67 Thus, claims analogous to those in In Concerning claims directed to computer program re Abele68 in which ‘‘data clearly represented physical products, one district court has held that appending ‘‘A and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, or- computer readable media including program instruc- gans, and other body tissues [so as to recite] the trans- tions’’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- formation of that raw data into a particular visual depic- sufficient to make it statutory 72 The board has also tion of a physical object on a display’’ are patent- held ineligible claims to ‘‘a computer readable me- dia ’’73 The board has, however, also upheld the eligibil-ity of ‘‘a computer program product’’ as being embod- ied in a computer readable medium 74 Given these in- Bilski has had a significant impact in eliminating consistent decisions, the patent eligibility of claims in patent protection for inventions that are performed en- tirely by humans or can be interpreted as such if read Concerning claims directed to generalized computer broadly  This includes claims that describe processes processing functions, several Board decisions suggest for creating or manipulating legal and financial docu- that, absent a tie to a concrete real-world application, ments and relationships  In this area in particular, many such claims are likely to be deemed an ‘‘algorithm’’ un- pending applications filed prior to Bilski are no longer der Benson and therefore held to be non-statutory  75 patent-eligible, and many issued patents are no longer Any recitation of a specific field of use for the claimed valid  This retroactive impact of the Bilski decision is process or use of the outcome of such processes are troubling, given the investment in these patents and ap- also more likely to be found ‘‘field-of-use’’ or ‘‘post- plications, which have now been rendered essentially solution activity’’ limitations insufficient to render the worthless despite the suggestion in the Federal Circuit’s claim patent-eligible  Thus, the more tied a claimed pro- earlier State Street decision, now overruled, that such cess is to tangible results or particular applications (not claims qualified for patent protection 
just fields of use), the more likely it is to qualify under Inventions that do not fit within the four statutory categories are also not patent-eligible  The Federal Cir-cuit and the board have rejected claims directed to ‘‘a III  Presenting and Claiming Methods in Patent signal,’’ ‘‘a paradigm,’’ ‘‘a user interface’’ and ‘‘a corr-elator’’ on the basis that these items did not qualify as a ‘‘machine, manufacture, composition of matter or pro- Several strategies for describing and claiming meth- cess’’ under § 101  70 There is also an increasing focus ods or processes in patent applications may avoid or on the tangibility of the claimed invention in that, to minimize potential Section 101 problems 
qualify as a ‘‘machine’’ or ‘‘manufacture’’ under Section First, the description provided in a patent application should include well-defined steps or functions associ-ated with method or process  For example, when the claims include ‘‘initiating’’ method steps, a description Remaining areas of uncertainty concerning the scope of well-defined physical steps or functions for initiating of Section 101 include (1) what qualifies under Bilski as should be provided, and a concrete item, machine, de- a ‘‘transformation of an article or data,’’ (2) whether vice, or component that is responsible for the initiating claims to computer programs (Beauregard claims) function should be identified  For claiming ‘‘identify- qualify, and (3) whether internal computer processing ing’’ method steps, provide specific parameters for functionality not tied to a specific application or tan- making the identification, such as according to a speci- fied measurement 76 Where data is involved, the source Concerning data transformation, other than Abele- and type of data should be specified 
style claims discussed above, what qualifies as a data or Also, drawings should be provided that depict the article transformation remains unclear  Claims that concrete item, device, component or combination have been held not to meet the transformation prong in- thereof, and each method or process step or function clude claims directed to the creation or manipulation of should be linked expressly to at least one item, device data representing an intangible series of rights and ob- or component in the drawings that performs the step or ligations (e g , credit card data) and claims directed to function  Broadening language indicating that other the transformation or manipulation of legal obligations components may also be used to perform the function and relationships  Beyond these specific examples, it is may also be included to avoid an unduly narrow inter- difficult to predict what will or will not qualify as a data or article transformation under Bilski 
The claims should affirmatively claim the device, ma- chine or component performing each step or function 
67 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963; Research Corporation Tech- For computer or software-related inventions, the de- nologies, 2009 WL 2413623 at *9 
scription should specify that the software functionality 68 The claimed process involved graphically displaying vari- ances of data from average values wherein the data was X-rayattenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a com- 72 Cybersource Corp , 620 F  Supp  2d at 1080 
puted tomography scanner  See In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 962- 73 Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-004742 
74 Ex parte Bodin, No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
69 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963 
75 E g , Ex parte Greene, No  2008-004073 (B P A I  Apr  24, 70 In re Nuijten 500 F 3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed 
2009); Daughtrey, No  2008-000202; Ex parte Arning, No 
Cir  2007) (74 PTCJ 631, 9/28/07) (signal); In re Ferguson, 558 2008-003008 (B P A I  Mar  30, 2009); Cybersource Corp , 620 F 3d 1359, 1366, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed  Cir  2009) (77 PTCJ F  Supp 2d at 1080 (concerning claim 2) 
489, 3/13/09) (paradigm); Ex parte Daughtrey, No  2008- 76 See Brief of American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 000202 (B P A I  Apr  8, 2009) (user interface); Ex parte Laba- Supporting Respondent, Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964, ABA die, No  2008-004310 (B P A I  May 6, 2009) (correlator) 
Amicus Br  at 12-13 (U S  amicus brief filed Oct  2, 2009) (78 71 E g , Nuijten, 500 F 3d at 1356-7 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL is performed by a computer or computer components 
patent or published application, the option of importing Specificity as to the type of computer component per- subject matter into the specification is limited to ‘‘non- forming each function may be helpful in establishing essential’’ subject matter  In other words, the specifica- eligibility under the Bilski test 
tion can only be amended to disclose a machine for per-forming process steps as long as one skilled in the art IV  Fixing Pre-Bilski Applications to Meet the New would recognize from the original disclosure that the process is implemented by a machine  The key in mak- For patent applications filed prior to the Bilski deci- ing this type of amendment is avoiding (or overcoming) sion, it can be challenging to meet the new require- a rejection under 35 U S C  § 112, para  1, for lack of ments for patent eligibility, particularly when no ma- chine or transformations were expressly described in If incorporation by reference is not an option, a patent applicant may submit evidence, such as a decla- In some cases, there may be sufficient explicit de- ration by the inventor or a duly qualified technical ex- scription of a machine, e g , a computer, such that the pert, demonstrating that one skilled in the art would un- machine can be added into the body of the claims  For derstand the disclosed method to be one performed by example, patent applications for computer-related in- a machine  Unlike attorney argument, which can be dis- ventions sometimes contain a generic description of regarded, such evidence must be considered by the ex- computers that are used to perform the claimed method, and such a generic description may be suffi- One other option is to reformat the claims  Since Bil- cient to impart patent eligibility to the claims when the ski ostensibly does not apply to system and apparatus general-purpose computer is programmed to become a claims, in some instances it may be possible for an ap- plicant to convert his method claims into system claims For patent applications lacking in an explicit descrip- to avoid application of the Bilski test  This strategy, tion of any machine, however, the application may in- however, is unlikely to succeed where the patent speci- corporate by reference patents or publications that can fication does not describe such a system for implement- be used to bolster the specification and provide support ing the method and therefore does not provide the req- for the requisite claim amendments  When an applica- uisite disclosure of the claimed invention under Section tion incorporates by reference a U S  patent or pub- lished U S  patent application, any description from the incorporated references, whether or not the subject The future of the Bilski machine-or-transformation matter is ‘‘essential’’ to support the claims, may be im- test now rests with the Supreme Court  Regardless of ported into the specification  This option may enable the outcome of the appeal, however, it is clear that the importation of the requisite description of a machine, scope of statutory subject matter under Section 101 has which can then also be recited in the claims 77 When been narrowed  The Supreme Court now has a chance the document incorporated by reference is not a U S 
to clarify what has been excluded; it may even reject ormodify the Bilski machine-or-transformation test  How 77 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Ed , Rev 
this will affect the development and protection of cur- 7/2008, at § 608 01(P); see also 37 C F R  § 1 57 
rent and future technologies remains to be seen 
Source: http://www dorsey com/files/upload/luedke_bna_patent_journal_nov09 pdf
(resolução 404 2012 retificação 19062012)
RESOLUÇÃO Nº 404 , DE 12 DE JUNHO DE 2012 Dispõe sobre padronização dos procedimentos administrativos na lavratura de Auto de Infração, na expedição de notificação de autuação e de notificação de penalidade de multa e de advertência, por infração de responsabilidade de proprietário e de condutor de veículo e da identificação de condutor infrator, e dá outras providências 
Cheloidi e cicatrici ipertrofiche in dermatologia
a cura del dr  Antonio Del Sorbo - Specialista in Dermatologia e Venereologia antoniodelsorbo@libero it I Cheloidi di Alibert A volte una ferita anche apparentemente banale, guarisce lasciando una cicatrice voluminosa, rossastra e soprattutto antiestetica  I cheloidi sono cicatrici abnormi che possono far seguito a intervento chirurgico (es: tiroide, mammella, etc) e questo u
Context 2: '用户指南 * User Guide 02 CN 11 EN * 包装内含 使用前注意事项 快速引导 产品部件详情说明 操作说明 02 02 03 06 08 01 
•本产品支持在系统设置中进行瞳距调节 , 调节时请务必注意，最小瞳距可能会碰触鼻梁。当您佩戴头盔后，您 “显示”中进行手动调节，请注意设置使用不合适的瞳距，可能会引起视觉重影或者眼睛疲劳。 可在“设置” ► •本产品“护眼模式”经德国 TÜV Rheinland 低蓝光认证，通过软件算法降低三色通道中的蓝光量，来达到保护 “护眼” “色彩调节” 眼睛的作用，该模式下画面颜色偏黄，您可根据个人喜好在“设置” 中激活或关闭此功能。 ““显示” ► ► ► 包装内含： VR 头盔 / 手柄 × 2 / 1 5V AA 碱性干电池 × 4/ 眼镜支架 / 遮光鼻托 / 手柄挂绳 × 2 / USB-C 电源适配器 / USB-Cto C 2 0 数据线 / 快速指南 / 用户指南 / 安全与质保指南使用前注意事项 •本产品在开阔的室內环境使用体验最佳，建议至少预留 2×2 米 的空间。使用前请确认身体没有不适且周围环 境安全，特别是佩戴头盔在室内行走移动时，要尽量避免发生意外。 •不建议 12 岁及以下儿童使用本产品，建议将头盔、手柄和配件置于儿童够不到的位置，13 岁以上青少年须在 成人监护下使用，以免发生意外。 •本产品无近视调节功能，近视用户请佩戴眼镜使用并尽量避免近视眼镜被头盔的光学镜片磨伤或刮伤。建议在 使用和收纳时注意防护光学镜片，避免尖锐物体划伤镜片，擦拭清洁时请使用柔软的眼镜布，否则可能划伤镜片， 影响视觉效果。 •长时间使用可能引发轻微的昡晕或者眼疲劳，建议使用 30 分钟后适当休息，可通过眼保健操或观看远处物体缓 解眼疲劳。如果您的身体感到任何不适，请立即停止使用。如果不适持续，请咨询医生。 •当头盔镜片被阳光或紫外线照射时（尤其在户外、阳台、窗台及汽车内存放时），可能导致屏幕出现永久性黄斑。 请尽量避免该情况发生，此种屏幕损坏不在产品的质保范围内。 *本产品最终外观及功能以实物为准，部分地区包装内含物品有所差异，本说明仅供参考。 02 CN
六自由度 VR 体验 本产品可以追踪头盔和手柄前、后、左、右、上、下和旋转的运动状态，您在现实中的肢体运动会实时反映在虚 拟世界中。 由于没有任何线缆的束缚，您在虚拟世界自由探索时请确保游玩区域的安全。 1  建议准备一个整洁安全的体验空间：至少 2×2 米；保持房间明亮，避免在只有单色的墙或大面积玻璃、镜子类 反射物以及许多移动画面和物体的空间中使用。 2  撕下 VR 头盔前端摄像头上的保护膜，并佩戴手柄挂绳。 3  根据开机后的画面提示进行游玩区域的设定。 ❶ 安装电池 按箭头方向拔出电池盖侧边的绝缘纸 快速引导 提示：本产品虚拟的安全区提醒功能，不能完全保证您在设定好的游戏区域中的安全，请时刻注意周围的安全情况。 提示：建议使用 1 5V AA 碱性电池。 按照图示拨动电池盖拨钮打开电池盖更换电池。 03 CN
❷ 手柄开机 ❸ 头盔开机 ❹ 佩戴头盔，调节至清晰舒适的位置 首次开机：拔出绝缘纸，手柄自动开机（蓝灯闪烁） 非首次开机：短按手柄 Home 键开机（蓝灯闪烁） 长按头盔电源键 2 秒（蓝灯常亮） 调节旋钮转动绑带，使后脑垫套在头上，微调绑带长度及佩戴位置至视野清晰 04 提示：近视用户请佩戴眼镜或镜片插件使用，本产品不具备近视调节功能。 CN
❺ 微调顶绑带 微调顶绑带使其受力以减少额头压力 ❻ 瞳 距 调 节 在系统设置：“设置” ► “显示”界面中进行瞳距调节，点击“+”或“-”按钮可微调瞳距直至画面清晰 64mm 请勿 强行 掰动镜 筒，以 免造 成损坏 ！ 请注 意设 置使用 不合适 的瞳 距，可 能 会引起 视 觉重影 或 者眼睛 疲 劳。准 确 的瞳距 设 置有助 于 获得清 晰 的图像 并 减少眼睛 疲劳。 05 CN
产品部件详情说明 头盔状态指示灯 蓝灯常亮：开机进行中或工作状态 黄灯常亮：充电中，电量低于 98% 红灯常亮：充电中，电量低于 20% 绿灯常亮：充电完毕，电量大于 98% 或 充满 蓝灯闪烁：关机进行中 红灯闪烁：电量低于 20% 指示灯熄灭：休眠或关机 06 ① 电源键 开机：长按 2 秒 关机：长按 5 秒 复位：长按 10 秒 开机时，短按休眠 ② ③ ④ ⑤ 状态指示灯 贴脸泡棉 音量键 彩色透视摄像头 使用时请勿遮挡 ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ 顶部绑带 可拆卸 绑带旋钮 环境追踪摄像头 使用时请勿遮挡 ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ USB-C 接口 左 / 右喇叭 距离传感器 佩戴头盔后，系统自动唤醒 摘下头盔后，系统自动休眠 ⑫ ⑬ 眼球追踪摄像头 此功能仅 Pro 版支持 使用时请勿遮挡 面部追踪摄像头 此功能仅 Pro 版支持 使用时请勿遮挡 CN
手柄状态指示灯 熄灭：已连接或者关机 蓝灯常亮：固件升级模式 蓝灯闪烁：连接中 红蓝灯交替慢速闪烁：等待配对 ① ② 摇杆 菜单键 ③ Home 键 开机 : 短按关机 : 长按 6 秒退出应用 : 短按屏幕中心校正 : 长按 1 秒④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ 状态指示灯 抓握键 截屏键 扳机键 ⑧ ⑨ 电池盒 打开：拨动拨钮，电池盒弹出 安装：按压直至自动锁紧 追踪光环 使用时请勿遮挡 注：手柄挂绳可按图示将粗绳穿过细绳并锁紧在手柄尾端 07 CN
手柄硬件复位 如果手柄出现按 Home 键和任何按键均无反应或者头盔中虚拟手柄卡死不动的问题可拆装电池重新启动手柄。 近视用户配戴 本设备不具备近视调节功能，头盔可支持佩戴镜框宽度小于 150mm 的大多数标准眼镜。 操作说明 头控模式 未连接手柄的情况下，您可通过转动头部光标及点击头盔音量加减按键进行操作。 切换主控手柄射线 在主控菜单下，短按对应手柄的扳机键可以切换主控手柄的射线。 屏幕中心校正 戴着头盔直视前方，按住手柄 Home 键（或头控模式下头盔上的音量减键）1 秒以上，进行屏幕中心的校正将菜 单拉到当前视野朝向位置。 断开手柄 长按手柄 Home 键直至手柄状态指示灯红灯亮起并伴随振动产生时即可松手，此时手柄关机并断开与头盔的连接。 您无需刻意进行手柄关机操作，在以下状态下手柄会自动关机省电： •头盔进入深度休眠时（摘下头盔后一段时间） •头盔手柄管理界面解绑手柄时 •头盔关机时 添加新手柄 如需添加新手柄（头盔最多可同时连接一对手柄，即左右手柄各一只），或解绑手柄后再次连接 , 可进入“设置” “手 柄”，点击“配对”，同时按住手柄 Home 键和扳机键直至手柄状态指示灯红蓝交替闪烁时即可松开，然后根据 头盔画面提示操作。 ► 休眠 / 唤醒 方式一：摘下头盔一段时间后，系统自动休眠；戴上头盔时，系统自动唤醒。 方式二：短按头盔电源键也可以进行休眠或唤醒操作。 硬件复位 头盔硬件复位 如果头盔出现短按头盔电源键没有反应或头盔的画面卡死等问题，可以长按头盔电源键 10 秒以上重新启动头盔。 08 CN
安装眼镜支架 安装遮光鼻托 如您存在眼镜摩擦光学镜片或者压迫鼻梁的问题，请按照图示安装眼镜支架以增加间隔空间。 您可根据佩戴的舒适度选择是否安装。 如您感觉鼻子处漏光影响体验，请按照图示安装遮光鼻托配件。 由于眼睛空间密闭可能加剧起雾及出汗问题，您可根据喜好选择是否安装。 ❶ 摘下贴脸泡棉 ❷ 将眼镜支架按照图示安装在产品上 ❸ 将贴脸泡棉按照图示安装眼镜支架上 ❶ 摘下贴脸泡棉 ❸ 安装贴脸泡棉❷ 将遮光鼻托按照图示方式安装在贴脸泡棉上 注：按照图示拆卸眼镜支架 09 CN
更换贴脸泡棉 贴脸泡棉多次清洁和长时间使用后会变色和质地变软，您可酌情更换新泡棉。 更换顶绑带 摘下贴脸泡棉 ❸ 安装贴脸泡棉 按照图示捏住顶绑带金属扣，往下压到底然后抽出 ❷ •购买优质热门应用 •畅 聊 社 区， 与 众 多 PICO 玩 家 一起探索 VR 世界 •管理设备更便捷 •参与丰富互动活动 •更多精彩内容等你来发现 ❶ 微 信公 众 号：PICO VR抖音：PICO官 方 旗 舰 店哔 哩 哔 哩：PICO-VR官 方微 博：PICO-VR ❶ ❷ 10 CN
In The Box: VR Headset / 2 Controllers / 4 1 5V AA Alkaline Batteries / Glasses Spacer / Nose Pad / 2 Controller Lan- yards / USB-C Power Adapter / USB-C to C 2 0 Data Cable / Quick Guide / User Guide / Safety and WarrantyGuide Important Health & Safety Notes • This product is designed and intended to be used in an open and safe indoor area, free of anytripping or slipping hazards  To avoid accidents, remain conscious to the potential confines ofyour physical area and respect the boundary of your virtual area whenever you see it  Be sure towear the lanyards when using the Controllers  Make sure that there is enough space around yourhead and body (at least 2 meters by 2 meters) to stretch your arms to avoid damage or injury toyourself, others, and your surroundings  • This product is not recommended for children aged 12 and under  It is recommended to keep headsets,controllers and accessories out of the reach of children  Teenagers aged 13 and over must use it underadult supervision to avoid accidents  • This product is designed to accommodate most prescription glasses  Make sure to wear the VR Headsetin a manner in which the VR Headset lenses do not rub or impair your prescription lenses  • Prolonged use may cause dizziness or eye fatigue  It is recommended to take a break every 30 minutes Try relieving your eyestrain by looking at distant objects  If you feel any discomfort, stop using the prod- uct immediately  If the discomfort persists, seek medical advice • Do not expose the optical lenses to direct sunlight or other strong light sources  Exposure to directsunlight may cause permanent yellow spot damage on the screen  Screen damage caused by sunlightexposure or other strong sources of light is not covered by the warranty  • This product supports interpupillary distance (IPD) adjustment in system settings  When adjusting,please be aware that with the minimum IPD, it may touch the bridge of the nose  You can adjust the IPDaccording to your actual interpupillary distance in "Settings"►"Display"  Please note that using inap- propriate IPD may increase the risk of discomfort  • This product has an “Eye Protection Mode”, certified by TÜV Rheinland (Germany), which can protectyour eyes by reducing blue light in the three color channels using software algorithms  The screen ap- pears yellowish in this mode and you can turn this feature on/off in "Settings"►"Display"►"Color"►“- Eye Protection”  • Protect optical lenses during use and storage to prevent damage, such as scratches or exposure tostrong light or direct sunlight  * Product and packaging are updated regularly, and the functions and contents of the standalone headset may be upgraded in the future Therefore, the content, appearance and functionality listed in this manual and product packaging are subject to change and may notreflect the final product  These instructions are for reference only  * Carefully read this user guide before using the product and share this information with any other users, as it contains important safetyinformation  Keep the user guide as reference for the future  11 EN
6 Degrees of Freedom VR The device can track your translational and rotational movements in all directions (up/down, left/right,forward/backward, pitch, roll, and yaw)  Your movements in the real world will be captured and translatedto what you see in the virtual world when using the appropriate content  Ensure a safe environment before you start your VR experience  1  Clear a safe indoor area of at least 2 meters by 2 meters  Keep the room bright, avoid spaces with main- ly single-colored walls, glass, mirrors, moving pictures or other similar objects  2  Remove the protective film that covers the headset front cameras  Wear the lanyards connected to theControllers  3  Set up your environment by following instructions on the VR Headset screen  Install Batteries ❶Pull the tab to remove the insulating paper  Quick Guide 2 m 2m This product can not guarantee your safety with guardian system, you will need to always pay attention to the surrounding safety  * Note: 1 5V AA alkaline batteries should be used Slide the toggle according to arrow direction toopen the battery case  12 EN
Power on the Controller ❷ First Start: The Controller will start automaticallyafter removing the insulating paper  Others: Short press the Home button for 1second until the status indicator flashes blue Power on the VR Headset ❸ Long press the Power button for 2 seconds untilthe status indicator turns blue Wear Your Headset for a Comfortable Fit and View ❹ Adjust the strap dial to turn the strap so that the back of your head rests on the padding  Fine-tune thelength and position of the strap to give a clear view  * Note: You can use this product with prescription glasses or lenses insert  13 EN
Fine-tune the Top Strap ❺ Fine-tune the head strap to reduce pressure on the forehead  Interpupillary Distance (IPD) Adjustment ❻ In System Setting, go to “Setting” ► “Display” to adjust IPD, tap “+” or “-” button to slightly adjust IPDuntil the picture is clear  14 64mm Please note that inappropriate IPD setting may cause ghosting or eyestrain Accurate IPD setting helps you get a clear imaging and ease eyestrain  EN
Product Details VR Headset Status Indicator Legend Blue: Powered on with battery over 20% Yellow: Charging: Battery is less than 98% Red: Charging: Battery is less than 20% Green: Charging: Battery is more than 98% or charge complete Blue flashing: Shutting down Red flashing: Battery is less than 20% Off: Sleeping or Powered off Power Power on: Long press for 2 seconds Power off: Long press for 5 seconds Hardware reset: Long press for 10 seconds Short press to enter sleep or wake up Status Indicator Face Cushion Volume ① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ RGB See Through Camera Do not block during use  Top Strap Removable Strap Dial Tracking Cameras Do not block during use  ⑨ ⑩ ⑪ USB-C Interface Left/Right Speaker Proximity Sensor The system wakes upwhen the VR headset isput on, sleeps when VRheadset is taken off  ⑫ ⑬ Eye Tracking Cameras Pro version only  Do not block during use  Face Tracking Camera Pro version only  Do not block during use  15 EN
Controller Status Indicator Legend Off: Connected or Powered off Blue: Firmware updating in progress Blue flashing: Searching for connection Red and blue flashing alternately: Pairing in progress 16 Joystick Menu ③ ① ② Home Power on: Short pressPower off: Long press for 6 secondsReturn home screen: Short pressScreen recentering: Press for 1 secondStatus Indicator Grip Capture Trigger ④ ⑤ ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ Battery Case Open: Slide down the toggle andpop up the battery case  Lock: Push the battery case to lock  Tracking Ring Do not block during use  * Note: Pass the Controller Lanyardthrough the string as shown andlock at the end of the Controller EN
Operating Instructions Headset Control Mode If the Controller is not connected, you can interact with the home screen by moving your head to directthe crosshairs over your intended selection and clicking the Volume Up/Down button on the VR Headset  Switch the pointer of the master Controller In the home screen, short press the Trigger of the corresponding Controller to switch the pointer of themaster Controller  Screen re-centering Wear the VR Headset and look straight ahead, press and hold the Home button of the Controller or VRHeadset ( or the Volume Down button of the VR Headset in head control mode) for more than 1 second tore-center the screen  Disconnect the Controller Press and hold the Home button until the status indicator turns red and the Controller vibrates Controllers will automatically shut down to save power in the following cases:When the VR Headset enters deep sleep (a while after the VR Headset is taken off)When the Controller is unpairedWhen the VR Headset is powered off Add a new Controller If you need to add a new Controller (the VR Headset can only connect one left Controller and one rightController) or reconnect with an unpaired Controller  Go to “Settings” ► “Controller”, click on “Pair” Press and hold the Home button and the Trigger of the Controller at the same time until the red and bluelights of the Controller flashing alternately, and then follow the instructions on the VR Headset screen  Sleep / Wake up Option 1 (Proximity Sensor) Take off VR Headset for automatic sleeping: wear the VR Headset for automat- ic waking up  Option 2 (POWER Button) Press the Power button of the VR Headset for manual sleeping or waking up  Hardware reset VR Headset reset If the visual in the VR Headset freezes, or the VR Headset does not respond after short press the Powerbutton, you can press the Power button of the VR Headset for more than 10 seconds to reboot the VRHeadset  Controller reset If the virtual Controller, the Home button or any buttons of the Controller doesn\'t respond, remove andreinstall the battery case to restart the Controller  The VR Headset Adjustment This device has no myopia adjustment function  The VR Headset allows wearing most standard glasseswith a frame width of less than 150mm  to install Glasses Spacer to increase the space  You can install or not according to your situation  17 EN
Install Glasses Spacer Install Nose Pad If you have glasses collision with headset lens or pressure on the bridge of nose, please follow the pictureto install Glasses Spacer to increase the space  You can install or not according to your situation  If you feel light leaking from your nose, please follow the picture to install Nose Pad to block the light You can consider having it installed at your own discretion  Disassemble the Face Cushion  Install the Glasses Spacer on the Headset  ❸ ❶ ❷ Install the Face Cushion on the Glasses Spacer  Disassemble the Face Cushion  Install the Nose Pad on the Face Cushion  ❶ ❷ Install the Face Cushion on the Headset  ❸ * Note: Disassemble the Glasses Spacer 18 EN
Replace Face Cushion The Face Cushion will have the following phenomena such as color change, surface fluff, soft texture afterlong-term use and repeated cleaning  You can replace a new Face Cushion as needed  Replace Top Strap ❶ ❷ Disassemble the Face Cushion  Pinch the metal buckle of the top strap asshown, press it down and pull it out Install the Face Cushion on  ❸ ❷ ❶ • Purchase high-quality and trending apps • Join PICO Community and explore the VR worldwith other PICO players• Manage your device with ease • Engage in diverse and interactive activities • More exciting features waiting for you 19 EN
'
Context 3: Margaret Way (b  Brisbane d  Cleveland, Queensland, Australia ) was an Australian writer of romance novels and women's fiction  A prolific author, Way wrote more than 120 novels since 1970, many through Mills & Boon, a romance imprint of British publisher Harlequin UK Ltd , owned by Harlequin Enterprises 

Biography
Before her marriage, she was a well-known pianist, teacher, vocal coach and accompanist  She began writing when her son, Laurence Way, was born, a friend took a pile of Mills & Boon books to her, she read all and decided that she also could write these types of novels



ground_truth: It required the transformation to be limited to specific data and a visual depiction representing specific objects or substances.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What may happen if the VR headset lenses are exposed to sunlight or strong light?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  She began to write and promote her country with her stories set in Australia  She sold her first novels in 1970  Margaret Way lives with her family in her native Brisbane  Beginning in 2013, Margaret began to self-publish, releasing her first "e-book" mid-July 

Margaret died on the 10th of August 2022 in Cleveland, Queensland 

Bibliography

Single Novels
King Country (1970)
Blaze of Silk (1970)
The Time of the Jacaranda (1970)
Bauhinia Junction (1971)
Man from Bahl Bahla (1971)
Summer Magic (1971)
Return to Belle Amber (1971)
Ring of Jade (1972)
Copper Moon (1972)
Rainbow Bird (1972)
Man Like Daintree (1972)
Noonfire (1972)
Storm Over Mandargi (1973)
Wind River (1973)
Love Theme (1974)
McCabe's Kingdom (1974)
Sweet Sundown (1974)
Reeds of Honey (1975)
Storm Flower (1975)
Lesson in Loving (1975)
Flight into Yesterday (1976)
Red Cliffs of Malpara (1976)
Man on Half-moon (1976)
Swan's Reach (1976)
Mutiny in Paradise (1977)
One Way Ticket (1977)
Portrait of Jaime (1977)
Black Ingo (1977)
Awakening Flame (1978)
Wild Swan (1978)
Ring of Fire (1978)
Wake the Sleeping Tiger (1978)
Valley of the Moon (1979)
White Magnolia (1979)
Winds of Heaven (1979)
Blue Lotus (1979)
Butterfly and the Baron (1979)
Golden Puma (1980)
Temple of Fire (1980)
Lord of the High Valley (1980)
Flamingo Park (1980)
North of Capricorn (1981)
Season for Change (1981)
Shadow Dance (1981)
McIvor Affair (1981)
Home to Morning Star (1981)
Broken Rhapsody (1982)
The Silver Veil (1982)
Spellbound (1982)
Hunter's Moon (1982)
Girl at Cobalt Creek (1983)
No Alternative (1983)
House of Memories (1983)
Almost a Stranger (1984)
A place called Rambulara (1984)
Fallen Idol (1984)
Hunt the Sun (1985)
Eagle's Ridge (1985)
The Tiger's Cage (1986)
Innocent in Eden (1986)
Diamond Valley (1986)
Morning Glory (1988)
Devil Moon (1988)
Mowana Magic (1988)
Hungry Heart (1988)
Rise of an Eagle (1988)
One Fateful Summer (1993)
The Carradine Brand (1994)
Holding on to Alex (1997)
The Australian Heiress (1997)
Claiming His Child (1999)
The Cattleman's Bride (2000)
The Cattle Baron (2001)
The Husbands of the Outback (2001)
Secrets of the Outback (2002)
With This Ring (2003)
Innocent Mistress (2004)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)
Outback Marriages (2007)
Promoted: Nanny to Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Secret Son (2007)
Genni's Dilemma (2008)
Bride At Briar Ridge (2009)
Outback Heiress, Surprise Proposal (2009)
Cattle Baron, Nanny Needed (2009)

Legends of the Outback Series
Mail Order Marriage (1999)
The Bridesmaid's Wedding (2000)
The English Bride (2000)
A Wife at Kimbara (2000)

Koomera Crossing Series
Sarah's Baby (2003)
Runaway Wife (2003)
Outback Bridegroom (2003)
Outback Surrender (2003)
Home to Eden (2004)

McIvor Sisters Series
The Outback Engagement (2005)
Marriage at Murraree (2005)

Men Of The Outback Series
The Cattleman (2006)
The Cattle Baron's Bride (2006)
Her Outback Protector (2006)
The Horseman (2006)

Outback Marriages Series
Outback Man Seeks Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)

Barons of the Outback Series Multi-Author
Wedding At Wangaree Valley (2008)
Bride At Briar's Ridge (2008)

Family Ties Multi-Author
Once Burned (1995)

Hitched! Multi-Author
A Faulkner Possession (1996)

Simply the Best Multi-Author
Georgia and the Tycoon (1997)

The Big Event Multi-Author
Beresford's Bride (1998)

Guardian Angels Multi-Author
Gabriel's Mission (1998)

Australians Series Multi-Author
7  Her Outback Man (1998)
17



ground_truth: Exposure to sunlight or strong light may cause permanent yellow spot damage on the screen.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How many novels did Margaret Way write?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Master of Maramba (2001)
19  Outback Fire (2001)
22  Mistaken Mistress (2002)
24  Outback Angel (2002)
33  The Australian Tycoon's Proposal (2004)
35  His Heiress Wife (2004)

Marrying the Boss Series Multi-Author
Boardroom Proposal (1999)

Contract Brides Series Multi-Author
Strategy for Marriage (2002)

Everlasting Love Series Multi-Author
Hidden Legacy (2008)

Diamond Brides Series Multi-Author
The Australian's Society Bride (2008)

Collections
Summer Magic / Ring of Jade / Noonfire (1981)
Wife at Kimbara / Bridesmaid's Wedding (2005)

Omnibus in Collaboration
Pretty Witch / Without Any Amazement / Storm Over Mandargi (1977) (with Lucy Gillen and Margaret Malcolm)
Dear Caliban / Heart of the Eagle / Swans' Reach (1978) (with Jane Donnelly and Elizabeth Graham)
The Bonds of Matrimony / Dragon Island / Reeds of Honey (1979) (with Elizabeth Hunter and Henrietta Reid)
The Man Outside / Castles in Spain / McCabe's Kingdom (1979) (with Jane Donnelly and Rebecca Stratton)
Winds From The Sea / Island of Darkness / Wind River (1979) (with Margaret Pargeter and Rebecca Stratton)
Moorland Magic / Tree of Idleness / Sweet Sundown (1980) (with Elizabeth Ashton and Elizabeth Hunter)
The Shifting Sands / Portrait of Jaime / Touched by Fire (1982) (with Jane Donnelly and Kay Thorpe)
Head of Chancery / Wild Heart / One-Way Ticket (1986) (with Betty Beaty and Doris Smith)
Heart of the Scorpion / The Winds of Heaven / Sweet Compulsion (1987) (with Janice Gray and Victoria Woolf)
One Brief Sweet Hour / Once More With Feeling / Blue Lotus (1990) (with Jane Arbor and Natalie Sparks)
Marry Me Cowboy (1995) (with Janet Dailey, Susan Fox and Anne McAllister)
Husbands on Horseback (1996) (with Diana Palmer)
Wedlocked (1999) (with Day Leclaire and Anne McAllister)
Mistletoe Magic (1999) (with Betty Neels and Rebecca Winters)
The Australians (2000) (with Helen Bianchin and Miranda Lee)
Weddings Down Under (2001) (with Helen Bianchin and Jessica Hart)
Outback Husbands (2002) (with Marion Lennox)
The Mother's Day Collection (2002) (with Helen Dickson and Kate Hoffmann)
Australian Nights (2003) (with Miranda Lee)
Outback Weddings (2003) (with Barbara Hannay)
Australian Playboys (2003) (with Helen Bianchin and Marion Lennox)
Australian Tycoons (2004) (with Emma Darcy and Marion Lennox)
A Mother's Day Gift (2004) (with Anne Ashley and Lucy Monroe)
White Wedding (2004) (with Judy Christenberry and Jessica Steele)
A Christmas Engagement (2004) (with Sara Craven and Jessica Matthews)
A Very Special Mother's Day (2005) (with Anne Herries)
All I Want for Christmas    (2005) (with Betty Neels and Jessica Steele)
The Mills and Boon Collection (2006) (with Caroline Anderson and Penny Jordan)
Outback Desire (2006) (with Emma Darcy and Carol Marinelli)
To Mum, with Love (2006) (with Rebecca Winters)
Australian Heroes (2007) (with Marion Lennox and Fiona McArthur)
Tall, Dark and Sexy (2008) (with Caroline Anderson and Helen Bianchin)
The Boss's Proposal (2008) (with Jessica Steele and Patricia Thayer)
Island Heat / Outback Man Seeks Wife / Prince's Forbidden Virgin / One Night Before Marriage / Their Lost-and-found Family / Single Dad's Marriage Wish (2008) (with Robyn Donald, Marion Lennox, Carol Marinelli, Sarah Mayberry and Anne Oliver)
Australian Billionaires (2009) (with Jennie Adams and Amy Andrews)
Cattle Baron : Nanny Needed / Bachelor Dad on Her Doorstep (2009) (with Michelle Douglas)

External links
Margaret Way at Harlequin Enterprises Ltd

Australian romantic fiction writers
Australian women novelists
Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Women romantic fiction writers



ground_truth: Margaret Way wrote more than 120 novels.