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 underclassmen are on the NBA Draft Early-Entry List?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: The Official 2006 NBA Draft Early-Entry List  30 International Players, 62 underclassmen and one lone 5th year high school player make up this year's list, for a total of 93 early-entrants  Extensive commentary and early draft status projections are included   For comparison, in 2005, 108 players declared (61 NCAA, 12 high school, 35 internationals), up from 94 in 2004, and 73 in 2003 
There were no major surprises on the early-entry list, besides a few mid-major, Division II and NAIA players that decided to enter, as well as 5th year high school player Clarence Holloway  Amongst the International players, Hrvoje Peric, Renaldas Seibutis, and Kyrylo Fesenko are considered mild surprises who could end up cracking the 2nd round  NCAA Lottery prospects Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Josh McRoberts, Brandon Rush and Tyler Hansbrough decided to sit this one out as expected, as did Marco Belinelli, Uros Tripkovic and Goran Dragic on the international front 
Akbar Abdul-Ahad 6-0, PG, Idaho State Junior No Undrafted Averaged under 6 points in 20 minutes per game playing in the Big Sky  Being the first player on the NBA Draft Early-Entry list will likely go down as the highlight of his basketball career 
Arron Afflalo, 6-5, SG, UCLA Sophomore No Undrafted Afflalo initially told the LA media hes returning to school, but after a deep run in the NCAA tournament-- more in spite of his play than because of it--Afflalo will be testing the waters  Afflalo has very average size, athleticism, perimeter shooting and ball-handling skills  Hes clearly receiving bad advice on where his stock lies 
LaMarcus Aldridge, 6-11, PF/C, Texas Sophomore Yes Top 5 pick Aldridge made his announcement official to enter the draft some weeks ago  He will hire an agent soon (Arn Tellem?) and is considered a lock for the top 5 and a strong candidate for #1 overall 
Morris Almond, 6-6, SG, Rice Junior No ??? Almond announced hell be entering the draft, without an agent  He might be the best scorer in the NCAA youve never heard about  His stats are terrific, despite being the sole focal point of opposing defenses, and hes capable of scoring in a variety of ways, particularly with his jumper  Hes hoping for an invite to Orlando 
Renaldo Balkman, 6-8, PF, South Carolina Junior No Undrafted After winning the NIT MVP award, Balkman has decided to see where he stands in the eyes of the NBA by testing the waters  Hes likely to find them downright freezing, as hes a skinny and undersized power forward with little to no skills who came off the bench for a very average team 
Larry Blair,6-1, SG, Liberty Junior No Undrafted The 22 point per game scorer Blair is attempting to get some exposure for himself by testing the waters 
Will Blalock, Iowa State, 5-11, PG, Junior No Second round pick? Declared for the draft together with Curtis_Stinson after Iowa States coach was fired  Size is a big question mark  Will likely hope to attend the pre-draft camp in Orlando and try to show scouts hes a 1st rounder  Likely returns for his senior year 
Jahsha Bluntt, 6-6, SG, Deleware State Junior No Undrafted Puts up fairly average numbers (14 6 ppg, 41% FG) in one of the worst conferences in America  Looking for exposure at the Orlando pre-draft camp but its highly unlikely to receive it 
Josh Boone, 6-10, PF/C, UConn Junior No First round pick? Boone announced hell be entering the draft without an agent  An up and down season has left his stock in the air, and will likely force him to prove himself at the Orlando pre-draft camp  Would greatly benefit from a productive senior season as an offensive focal point now that UConn has lost almost all of its firepower from last year 
Ronnie Brewer, 6-6, PG/SG, Arkansas Junior No Lottery pick? After initially wavering a bit on his decision, Brewer announced hell be entering the draft without an agent in a press conference  Brewer is considered a likely late lottery pick to mid-first rounder pick, as his physical attributes and array of versatile skills on both ends of the floor are highly sought after 
Bobby Brown, 6-1, PG, Cal-State Fullerton Junior No First round pick? DraftExpress exclusively reported that Brown will be testing the waters  Still considered a bit of a sleeper because of the school he plays for, he will not be hiring an agent at this point  Some scouts are very high on his quickness and perimeter shooting ability and feel he will help his stock tremendously in private workouts 
Shannon Brown, 6-4, SG, Michigan State Junior No First round pick? As exclusively reported by DraftExpress, Brown will be testing the waters  He will likely conduct a number of workouts and attend the Orlando pre-draft camp to attempt and gauge where his stock lies  Scouts compare him to Celtic guard Tony Allen, but with a better attitude  Hes a very borderline first rounder in a draft that is stacked with shooting guards 
Derek Burditt, 6-7, SG, Blinn Junior College Sophomore No Undrafted Unknown Junior College prospect  Not ranked as one of the top 25 JUCO players in the country, averaged around 17 points per game  Not burning his draft card as hes not yet an NCAA player, so really doesnt have much to lose, or gain 
Leroy Dawson, 6-2, SG, Emporia State Junior No Undrafted Anonymous Division II player from the MIAA conference  2nd team all conference, averaged 20 points per game  Like MANY on this list, only declaring because he can and has nothing to lose 
Travis DeGroot, 6-4, SG, Delta State Junior No Undrafted Plays in a strong Division II conference, but is at best only the 3rd best prospect on his own team after Jasper Johnson and Jeremy Richardson, and is therefore not a prospect at all 
Guillermo Diaz, 6-2, PG/SG, Miami Junior Yes First round pick? As reported by DraftExpress all year long, Diaz decided to forgo his senior year of college by hiring an agent, Miami based Jason Levien  One of the top athletes and shooters in the draft, which makes for an intriguing combination 
Cem Dinc, 6-10, SF/PF, Indiana Freshman No Undrafted As exclusively reported by DraftExpress, Dinc will be testing the waters  The coach that recruited him and then never played him, Mike Davis, resigned, so it would not shock anyone to see Dinc return to play in Europe and become automatically eligible next year after pulling out of this years draft 
Quincy Douby, 6-3, PG/SG, Rutgers Junior No First round pick As exclusively reported by DraftExpress, Douby sent out his paperwork to enter the draft  NBA scouts are all over the board on him, with some saying they consider him a 2nd round pick and others saying they would not be surprised if he ended up in the lottery  Terrific shooter and shot creator, averaged 28 ppg in the Big East conference  A real sleeper who will likely play in Orlando 
Mike Efevberha, 6-5, SG, Cal State Northridge Junior ??? Undrafted Ramona Shelburne of the LA Daily News reported that Efevberha will be testing the waters  Efevberha was the leading scorer in the country until he had a falling out with his coach and saw his playing time reduced significantly  Hell likely be looking for an invite to the Orlando pre-draft camp, and does not appear to be likely to head back to school 
Carl Elliot, 6-4, PG, George Washington Junior No Undrafted Elliot is using his use it or lose it draft card as a junior to get some exposure for himself through workouts and try to figure out where he stands in the eyes of the NBA  Elliot has excellent size for the PG position, but is still lacking plenty of all-around polish  His senior year will be essential to his development as a player  Reportedly has a family to support, which makes his decision tough considering how old he is already, despite only being a junior 
Jordan Farmar, 6-2, PG, UCLA Sophomore No First round pick? Farmar was the engine that led his team to the Finals of the NCAA tournament, and the only player that showed up once they got there  He is one of the top playmakers in the country, a Steve Nash type point guard, but his average athleticism, defense and outside shooting means hes only a bubble first-rounder  DraftExpress has been on his bandwagon since day one at UCLA, but is the NBA on it too?
Nick Fazekas, 6-11, PF, Nevada Junior No First round pick? Fazekas announced hell be entering the draft without an agent and will likely return to Nevada if it looks like hes not going to be a first round pick  If hes not a first rounder this year, its hard to imagine him ever being one since there isnt much left for him to accomplish individually in the NCAA  An interesting candidate for the pre-draft camp in Orlando 
Thomas Gardner, 6-5, SG, Missouri Junior No Second round pick? The St  Louis Post Dispatch reported that Gardner will enter the draft  Firing of underachieving Missouri coach Quin Snyder appeared to be the straw the broke the camels back  Gardner will have to hope to get invited to Orlando, but moving into the first round appears unlikely without an incredible performance there 
Rudy Gay, 6-8, SF, UConn Sophomore Yes Top 10 pick Gay announced hes leaving UConn at a press conference on campus, with Coach Calhoun by his side  He will hire an agent eventually  Size, length, incredible talent and athleticism means he might have the most upside of any player in this draft  Does he have the fire to capitalize on it though?
Reggie George, 6-10, PF, Robert Morris Chicago (NAIA) Junior No Undrafted Transfer from Iowa State had a nice season in the NAIA and is looking to capitalize on it by gaining some exposure for himself 
Daniel Gibson, 6-2, PG/SG, Texas Sophomore ??? Second round pick As exclusively reported by DraftExpress, Gibson will be entering the draft  There appears to be a conflict between Gibson and Texas regarding what his role will be next year, specifically whether or not hell be playing the point, meaning its unclear whether or not hell be returning  Gibson will likely go to Orlando to help him decide what his next step is  Showing off some PG skills will be essential there 
Aaron Gray, 7-0, Center, Pitt Junior No First round pick? After a disappointing end to his season, being outplayed by Patrick OBryant in the NCAA tournament, Gray has put that behind him and entered his name in the draft without an agent  Hes yet another underclassmen with huge questions marks about his pro potential that will likely have to go to the Orlando pre-draft camp to show he is worthy of a first round pick  Made some great strides this year, but still has a ways to go, especially conditioning-wise 
LeShawn Hammett 6-0, PG, St  Francis Junior No Undrafted Undersized combo guard played only 7 minutes in the mighty Northeast Conference before being suspended indefinitely for conduct detrimental to team  The NBA is clearly the only goal left for him to achieve 
Brandon Heath, 6-3, PG/SG, San Diego State Junior No Second round pick? Streaky shooting combo guard Heath announced the he will test the NBA draft process this summer, and is hoping for an invite to the Orlando pre-draft camp  MWC player of the year; has a lot of wrinkles to his game that need to be ironed out before he can legitimately think about the NBA 
Tedric Hill, 6-10, PF, Gulf Coast Community College Sophomore Yes Undrafted Ineligible to return to school after flunking out of college once again  Has bounced around over the past few years, and received some early hype from wannabe draftniks such as Gregg Doyel (CBS-Sportsline) and Sam Smith (Chicago Tribune) who compare him to Kevin Garnett  Very athletic we're told, but has absolutely no idea how to play the game  Has no chance of being drafted without an amazing showing at the Orlando pre-draft camp 
Clarence Holloway 7-0, Center, IMG Academy (Prep School) 5th year High School No Undrafted Lone high school player in this years age-limit depleted draft  Former Louisville commit never got eligible for college and was always considered too slow and heavy to make much of an impact anyway  Reportedly lost weight and improved his grades this past year at IMG and is currently being recruited by UConn, Kansas State and Oklahoma, amongst others 
Ekene Ibekwe, 6-9, PF, Maryland Junior No Undrafted Sources told DraftExpress exclusively that Ibekwe will be testing the waters  Likely only making this move because he can, as his chances of being drafted are very low  Athletic and long, but still lacking any type of polish 
Donald Jeffers, 6-8, PF, Roxbury Community College Sophomore No Undrafted Anonymous junior college player 
Alexander Johnson, 6-9, PF, Florida State Junior Yes First round pick? Sources told DraftExpress, that Johnson will be hiring an agent, mainly because he is already 23 years old  Hes considered intriguing because of his strength, raw offensive tools and freakish athleticism at the 4 position, and could work his way into the 1st round with strong workouts 
David Johnson, 6-7, PF, Clinton Junior College Sophomore No Undrafted 6-7 JUCO power forward who averaged 2 points and 3 rebounds per game 
Trey Johnson, 6-5, SG, Jackson State Junior No Undrafted Small school prolific scorer and one of the most accurate perimeter shooters in the country will attempt to draw some more attention to himself by testing the waters this summer  Johnson is hoping for a chance to prove himself in the Orlando pre-draft camp in June 
Coby Karl, 6-4, PG/SG, Boise State Junior No Undrafted Son of Denver Nuggets head Coach George Karl put up nice numbers (17 ppg, 5 rebs, 4 assists, 39 5% 3P) in the underrated WAC conference  Had surgery in March to remove a cancerous lump from his thyroid 
Mark Konecny, 6-10, Center, Lambuth (NAIA) Junior No Undrafted Transfer from Syracuse with mediocre production is looking for any type of exposure he can get before he graduates next season 
Kyle Lowry, 6-1, PG, Villanova Sophomore No First round pick NCAA tournament performance showed that he definitely needs another year, but regardless, Lowry is in  For now its without an agent  Considering the lack of quality point guard prospects in this draft, Lowry is likely a first round pick  Says he will attend the Orlando pre-draft camp if invited 
Aleks Maric, 6-11, Center, Nebraska Sophomore No Undrafted As exclusively reported by DraftExpress, Maric will be testing the waters  What may have played a role in this is the fact that the assistant coach that recruited him at Nebraska, Scott Spinelli, just moved on to Wichita State  Maric is considered a very average athlete who is still very raw and is therefore likely to go undrafted should he decide to stay in  Thanks to his Croatian passport, there is money waiting for him overseas if he chooses to take it 
Japhet McNeil, 5-10, PG, East Carolina Junior No Undrafted Severely undersized PG averaged 4 points and 5 6 assists in watered down Conference USA 
Paul Millsap, 6-8, PF, Louisiana Tech Junior Yes First round pick? As expected, Millsap has declared his intentions to enter the NBA draft, and according to sources hired an agent as well  Millsap has likely achieved just about everything he can in college at this point, and will land somewhere in the 20-40 part of the draft depending on workouts and measurements 
Matt Mitchell, 6-0, PG, Southern University-New Orleans Junior No Undrafted Anonymous NAIA player 
Adam Morrison, 6-8, SF, Gonzaga Junior Yes Top 5 pick As DraftExpress exclusively reported that Morrison will be declaring for the draft and hiring Chicago based agent Mark Bartelstein  Morrison, the top scorer in college basketball, is expected to be a top 5 pick and potentially the #1 pick overall  Questions linger about his athleticism and defense, but no one questions his passion, talent or feel for the game 
Patrick O'Bryant, 7-0, Center, Bradley Sophomore Likely First round pick NBA sources in Portsmouth told DraftExpress exclusively that OBryant will be testing the waters without an agent, but is likely to go all the way once he hears that hes a lock for the 1st round  His steady improvement, strong sophomore season, outstanding NCAA tournament and considerable upside means hes probably gone  O'Bryant since confirmed both DraftExpresss reports, particularly the one about hiring an agent in the Tri-State area (Andy Miller) should he decide to go all the way 
Evan Patterson, 6-7, SF, Texas Wesleyan Junior No Undrafted Mediocre numbers (11 ppg, 2 rebs) in a mediocre Southland conference 
Danilo Pinnock, 6-5, SG, George Washington Junior No Undrafted The extremely athletic Pinnock has told GWs student paper hell be testing the waters  Pinnock will attempt to capitalize on his teams success this year by potentially attending the NBA pre-draft camp in Orlando  Pinnock will have to show better ball-handling and perimeter shooting ability than he did during the regular season 
Leon Powe, 6-7, PF, Cal Sophomore No Second round pick Powe announced hell be testing the waters in a statement released by Cal  Where he ends up being projected depends heavily on how his knee checks out  Powe is already considered a serious tweener by NBA scouts, and had a hard time this season gaining back much of the explosiveness he had earlier in his career  Could realistically go undrafted should he decide to stay in 
Richard Roby, 6-5, SG, Colorado Sophomore Likely Second round pick As first indicated by DraftExpress Roby has decided to test the waters  Disappeared against any major competition he went up against, particularly towards the end of the season  Roby will likely have to put on weight in the next few months and show off his perimeter stroke in the Orlando pre-draft camp  Sources tell us that he is on the verge of making a huge mistake by hiring an agent 
Rajon Rondo, 6-2, PG, Kentucky Sophomore Yes First round pick As expected, Rondo has decided to enter the NBA draft, and has also hired an agent, Bill Duffy  Despite an inconsistent sophomore season, most scouts weve spoken to still had him as at least the #2 point guard on their board because of his intriguing upside  Workouts will be huge for him 
Blake Schilb, 6-7, SG/SF, Loyola Chicago Junior No Undrafted Declared his intentions to enter the draft, without an agent, and is hoping for an invite to Orlando  Schlib is sorely lacking in the quickness and explosiveness departments that scouts demand from swingman prospects, but he makes up for it with his skill set to a certain extent  Regardless, sources tell us he wont be invited to Orlando, meaning he has to go back to school 
Mustafa Shakur, 6-4, PG, Arizona Junior No Second round pick? According to the Arizona Star, Shakur will likely enter his name in the draft, without an agent  Lute Olson confirmed it, saying he is not concerned about it  Shakur is hoping for an Orlando invite to show what he thinks he couldnt at Point Guard U 
Cedric Simmons, 6-9, PF/C, NC State Sophomore No First round pick? Simmons is reportedly "exploring his options," in regards to the 2006 NBA draft, but will do so without an agent  Nice size, frame, length, athleticism and defensive skills make him a very intriguing prospect 
Marcus Slaughter, 6-8, PF, San Diego State Junior Yes Second round pick? After burning his lone draft card a year early last June, despite being considered a marginal prospect, Slaughter has announced that he will be hiring agent Dan Fegan and forfeiting his remaining college eligibility  Slaughters father thinks that There was nothing else for Marcus to do at San Diego State  Many would disagree with that 
Curtis Stinson, 6-3, PG/SG, Iowa State Junior Yes Second round pick After swearing up and down last month that he has no intention on entering the draft, Stinson did just that  His coach Wayne Morgan, who he was very close to, was fired, resulting in him hiring agent Kevin Bradbury  The 23 year old combo guard will have to go to the Orlando pre-draft camp and impress if he wants to come close to being a 1st rounder 
Tyrus Thomas, 6-9, PF, LSU Freshman Yes Top 5 pick As DraftExpress exclusively reported Thomas called a press conference to announce his intentions to enter the 2006 NBA draft, as well as hire agents Brian Elfus and Mike Siegel  SEC Freshman of the year could be the most athletic player in the draft, as well as the player with the most overall upside 
PJ Tucker, 6-5, SF, Texas Junior No Second round pick As reported all year long by DraftExpress, Tucker will be entering the draft without an agent  Considering that hes a 6-5 combo forward with tremendous skills, his stock widely fluctuates depending on who is being asked  Phenomenal basketball player, but is severely lacking in 2-3 inches of height  Will likely need a strong showing at the Orlando pre-draft camp to have a legitimate shot at the 1st round  Some scouts compare him to Bonzi Wells 
Junior No Undrafted Undersized Division II post player has no chance of being drafted despite 20+8 averages 
Ian Vouyoukas, 6-10, Center, St  Louis Junior ??? Undrafted Vouyoukas declared his intentions to enter the draft, supposedly without an agent  Sources in Europe tell us he is likely to return to Greece to take a large contract offer from a first division team once he realizes he has no chance of being drafted  Vouyoukas is a nice mid-major big man who has improved somewhat in his junior season, but does not possess the necessary combination of athleticism and size required of an NBA center 
Darius Washington, 6-2, PG, Memphis Sophomore Likely First round pick? DraftExpress exclusively reported that Washington will be in the draft  It appears that hell be hiring an agent as well, despite not being anywhere near a lock for the first round 
Albert Weber, 6-3, SG, Connors State Sophomore No Undrafted Transfer from Alabama led his conference in scoring and is considered one of the top Junior College players in the country  Not officialy an NCAA player yet, and has not committed to any school yet, so really doesn't stand much to lose (or gain) from this move 
Marcus Williams, 6-3, PG, UConn Junior Yes Late Lottery-Mid-First As expected, Williams is expected to announce that hes hired Calvin Andrews of BDA Sports Management as his agent at a press conference next week  A strong junior season and outstanding NCAA tournament, establishing himself as one of the purest playmakers in the nation, means hes likely one of the first PGs taken 
Andriy Agafonov, 6-8, PF, Khimik 1986 Ukraine Undrafted Ukrainian power forward played 15 minutes and scored 6 points with 4 4 rebounds per game playing for FIBA EuroCup participants, and is declaring in hopes of getting his name out as he has one more draft card to burn after this before becoming automatically eligible 
Nemanja Aleksandrov, 7-0, SF/PF, KK Reflex 1987 Serbia & Montenegro ??? American agent has been telling us all year that hes likely to enter  Still hasnt played a game this year after taking slow recovery process from torn ACL  Once regarded as a prodigy and potential #1 overall pick, but injuries mean he hasnt played in nearly two years and is now considered damaged goods  Might just look for an attractive team to guarantee him in the 2nd round and develop him in the NBDL 
Pape-Philippe Amagou, 6-1, PG, Le Mans 1985 France ??? Amagous American agent has informed us that he will enter the NBA Draft this year, and participate in the Reebok Eurocamp in Treviso  Shares playmaking duties and spotlight with fellow early-entrant Yannick Bokolo 
Andrea Bargnani, 7-0, PF, Benetton Treviso 1985 Italy Top 5 pick Bargnani's Italian agent Stefano Meller told DraftExpress in Portsmouth that the Italian star power forward will definitely be entering the NBA draft  Bargnani is in the process of hiring an American agent and the only question is how long will it take for him to make it over to the US after Benetton finishes up in the Italian playoffs, which could last as far as mid-June  He is expected to be a top 5 pick with a shot at going #1 depending on how the lottery plays out  Considered a phenomenal talent thanks to his excellent size, perimeter skills and athleticism relative to height 
Yannick Bokolo, 6-3, PG/SG, Le Mans 1985 France ??? Terrific athlete who is still making the transition to playing the point full time 
Carlos Cedeno, 6-5, SG, Guaiqueries 1985 Venezuela Undrafted Relatively unknown Venezuelan player  Has some international experience at the junior levels 
Tadija Dragicevic, 6-8, PF, Red Star Belgrade 1986 Serbia & Montenegro Undrafted Undersized power forward barely played in the Adriatic League this past season 
Lior Eliyahu, 6-9, SF/PF, Galil Elyon 1985 Israel Second round pick? Prolific and athletic Israeli combo forward will be entering the NBA draft this year looking for certain guarantees from an NBA team in the 1st or 2nd round  Eliyahu is still in the Israeli army and will stay overseas for another year regardless of what happens  He'll be represented by the American agency Entersport in the United States  A midseason injury set him back from being the top Israeli player in the league despite his youth 
Rudy Fernández, 6-5, SG, DKV Joventut 1985 Spain First round pick? Has some minor buyout issues to deal with to make sure he can stay in the draft  Excellent season in Spain has him projected as a pretty solid first round pick  Improved outside shooting, and still the same excellent athlete, passer, defender and all-around player hes always been  Still very skinny too 
Kyrylo Fesenko, 6-11, PF, Azovmash 1986 Ukraine Second Round Pick More to come 
Rafael Hettsheimeir, 6-9, Center, Akasvayu Girona 1986 Brazil Undrafted Undersized Brazilian center did not overly impress at the Nike Hoop Summit, showing that he will likely lack mobility until he takes off some weight 
Marko Lekic, 6-11, PF, Atlas 1985 Serbia & Montenegro ??? American agent Marc Cornstein, Lekic told us hell be putting his name in the draft this year once again  Still a bit of an unknown, numbers are fairly average in the Serbian YUBA league 
Damir Markota, 6-11, SF/PF, Cibona Zagreb 1985 Croatia Second round pick American agent Marc Cornstein told us Markota will definitely be putting his name in the draft once again  He had a breakout season in the Euroleague and Adriatic league before a groin injury slowed him down and eventually forced him to have minor surgery  Likely wont be able to come to the States until very late in the process  Does not have a buyout 
Mickael Mokongo, 5-11, PG, Chalon 1986 France ??? DraftExpress was exclusively informed hell be in the draft  Considered a talented athlete, but lack of size and the fact that he missed a large chunk of the season due to injury means his draft stock is very much up in the air still 
Brad Newley, 6-6, SG, 1985 Australia Second round pick Newely has told the Australian media that hes entering the draft  Hired Philadelphia based agent Leon Rose  Scouts who saw him play in Argentina last summer like his athleticism  Desperately lacking exposure, but agent appears to be unwilling to provide him with it 
Oleksiy Pecherov, 6-11, PF, Racing Basket 1985 Ukraine Second round pick DraftExpress received indication that Pecherov will be entering his name in the draft after a nice 2nd half regular season in France  Pecherov has his draft card in hand one year before he becomes automatically eligible, meaning he has nothing to lose  Has some nice skills facing the basket, but is still very soft and underdeveloped 
Hrvoje Peric, 6-8, SF, KK Split 1985 Croatia Second round pick? Good athlete who is still coming into his own as a basketball player  Did not play in the Adriatic League this season  Definitely needs at least another year in Europe, but could use the exposure that declaring for the draft provides 
Kosta Perovic, 7-2, Center, Partizan 1985 Serbia & Montenegro Undrafted? DraftExpress has been told that Partizan needs Perovic to be drafted this year to relieve them of his 500,000$ salary next year as well as help them financially with buyout money for their budget  Unfortunately this is happening about 3 years too late as weve seen little to no improvement from Perovic over that span 
Georgios Printezis, 6-9, PF, Olympiakos 1985 Greece Undrafted Greek power forward played 9 minutes and scored 4 points per game playing for a Euroleague team, and is declaring in hopes of getting his name out before he becomes automatically eligible next year 
Milovan Rakovic, 6-10, PF, Atlas 1985 Serbia & Montenegro ??? American agent Marc Cornstein told us Rakovic will be putting his name in the draft  Still an unknown player, puts up nice numbers on occasion in the fairly weak Serbian YUBA league 
Alexandr Rindin, 7-5, Center, Gala Baku 1985 Azerbaijan Undrafted Huge body, complete unknown  5 points, 5 rebounds per game in FIBA Europe Cup 
Sergio Rodríguez, 6-3, PG, Estudiantes 1986 Spain First round pick Rodríguezs agent in the States told DraftExpress exclusively hell be in the draft, likely for good if he gets a commitment in the 1st round  A disappointing start to his season both in Spain and the ULEB cup made this European prodigy point guard fall on most teams draft boards, but Rodríguez picked things up substantially towards the end of the year and is now playing terrific basketball  Weak NCAA PG crop could put him in the lottery with good workouts 
Dusan Sakota, 6-10, SF/PF, Panathinaikos 1986 Greece Undrafted Fairly unathletic perimeter oriented big man was in the draft last year already  Plays for one of the best teams in Europe and rarely sees the floor for meaningful minutes 
Renaldas Seibutis 6-5, SG, Olympiakos 1985 Lithuania Undrafted One of the most productive players in Europe in his age group considering the level he plays at  Important cog on an excellent team, but lacks athleticism and isnt as good of a shooter as you would hope at this point in his career 
Saer Sene, 7-0, Center, Pepinster 1986? Senegal First round pick? Freakishly long and athletic African prospect who played extremely well at the Nike Hoop Summit  Many question his age and lack of productivity in the very average Belgian league A player teams will want to look at closely 
Sidiki Sidibe, 7-1, Center, Levallois 1985 France ??? 7-1, 265 pound volleyball player and former Kansas State commit will be in this years draft according to his American agent  Too raw to get any playing time whatsoever in French 2nd division 
Tiago Splitter, 7-0, PF/C, Tau Vitoria 1985 Brazil Lottery pick Splitters American agent Herb Rudoy told DraftExpress exclusively hes entering the draft Splitter is having a terrific season in both the ACB Spanish League and the Euroleague, but lack of buyout in his contract means he might not be able to stay in  CBA rules allow him to withdraw and become automatically eligible next season  Tau Vitorias president was quoted saying Splitter will be back in Spain next season 
Sun Yue, 6-9, PG/SF, Aoshen 1985 China Second round pick? Super talented tall point guard with decent athleticism and nice defensive skills  Lacks strength and outside shooting ability  Level of competition is mediocre in American semi-pro ABA league, which makes him an intriguing candidate for Orlando pre-draft camp 
Ali Traore, 6-9, PF, Roanne 1985 France ??? Puts up nice numbers in France  Will participate at the Reebok Eurocamp in Treviso 
Ejike Ugboaja, 6-8, PF, Union Bank Lagos 1985 Nigeria Undrafted Plays for Nigerian National Team 
Goran Dragic, 6-4, PG, Geoplin Slovan 1986 Agent initially notified us that Dragic will be entering the draft, but in the end decided to keep him out  His buyout was always a question mark 
Leigh Enobakhare, 6-10, Center, Oostende 1986 Agent Ugo Udezue from BDA Sports Management told us that Enobakhare will be entering the draft  In the end he must have heard that he is not considered a prospect at all, and decided to keep him out of the draft 
Cartier Martin, 6-8, SF/PF, Kansas State Junior Martin pondered entering his name in the draft, especially after the firing of Kansas State coach Jim Wooldridge 
Nick Young, 6-6, SG, USC Sophomore Young told the LA Daily News in February that hes staying at USC for another year 
D J  Strawberry, 6-5, SG/SF, Maryland Junior Strawberry initially intended to test the waters, but eventually ended up not doing so once he found out that his chances of being drafted are almost non-existent 
Al Thornton, 6-7, SF/PF, Florida State Sophomore Implied earlier on in the year that he might put his name in, but sources recently told us it appears that he will return for his senior year  Tallahassee media backs this up 
Marcus Williams (AZ), 6-8, SG/SF, Arizona Freshman After initially appearing to be gone after numerous definitive reports, Williams surprised everyone and thrilled Arizona fans by announcing in a press conference hell be returning for his sophomore year 
Josh McRoberts, 6-11, PF, Duke Freshman After being upset by LSU in the Sweet Sixteen, McRoberts was quoted saying Ill be at Duke next year   Duke issued a press release a month later confirming this 
Yi Jianlian, 7-0, PF, Guangdong 1987? International Jianlian announced in a press conference that hell be staying in China  A CBA official was also quoted on this matter, sounding as if they were the main factor for him staying put 
Acie Law, 6-3, PG, Texas A&M Junior After a fantastic showing in the NCAA tournament, Law helped his NBA draft stock considerably but will return for his senior year where A&M is expected to make a run at possibly winning the Big 12 
Joakim Noah, 6-11, PF/C, Florida Sophomore Huge 2nd half regular of the regular season and NCAA tournament boosted his stock into as high as the top 5  Noah came out and said afterwards hes staying regardless 
Al Horford, 6-9, PF, Florida Sophomore Horford indicated all season long that hes staying at least one more year, but playing extremely well in winning the national championship gave him a realistic chance at being a lottery pick  Regardless, Horford announced he'll return 
Corey Brewer, 6-8, SF, Florida Sophomore Brewer indicated all season long that hes staying at least one more year, but a terrific performance in the NCAA tournament gave him a realistic chance at being a top 20 pick  Regardless, Brewer announced he'll return 
Glen Davis, 6-8, Center, LSU Sophomore Davis announced hell be returning to LSU immediately after an absolutely horrendous showing in the Final Four which exposed all of his glaring weaknesses  Made it official as an LSU press conference alongside Tyrus Thomas 
Jason Smith, 7-0, PF/C, Colorado State Sophomore Smith announced that hes returning for his junior year, stating that "a little further down the road, it [the NBA] might be in my plans  I'm continuing to concentrate on my academics and see how I can help CSU as much as possible "
Jermareo Davidson, 6-10, PF, Alabama Junior > After burning his lone draft card a year early last June, Davidson considered entering the draft again, but eventually made the right decision in announcing hell be returning for his senior year 
Richard Hendrix, 6-8, PF, Alabama Freshman Told Alabama media after NCAA tournament loss that hell be back in Tuscaloosa next year 
Ja'Vance Coleman, 6-3, SG, Fresno State Junior Testing the waters according to the Fresno Bee  Whoops, no hes not 
Sean Singletary, 5-11, PG, Virginia Sophomore Singletary told The Daily Progress in early February that hes returning 
Context 3: Probably one of the most frustrating things about building experimental aircraft, especially when starting with a minimum of pre-fabricated parts, is to start building and ending up with an unexpected result  Every builder starts a new project by wanting it to go "perfectly " So when things aren't going well, especially at the beginning, the frustration can lead to an unfinished airplane 
This is the first article in a series dedicated to helping builders of the Rand Robinson KR series planes build a straight and true fuselage -- the first part of the construction process  Borrowing from modern boatbuliding techniques, focus will be on the KR-2S, but the principles apply to the entire lineup of KR-1 & KR-2 series planes 
While building the KR-2(s) a common surprise is encountered by builders when the completed fuselage sides are laid into position to form the fuselage box section  With many hours spent building the sides flat, finding the once straight longerons that now bow up from the building surface, form a most dissatisfying "banana" shape  Especially when using the preformed fiberglass parts, this curve in the top longeron is not acceptable  The builder is left wondering what went wrong and no amount of clamping or brute force forming will solve the problem to any degree of satisfaction  The problem is not the builder's fault  The solution starts by understanding the three dimensional relationship of the assembled parts being built 
First understand that the plans show the finished form of the plane  They show the "projected" form as you would expect to see it if viewing an actual plane from the top, ends and from the side  Since the sides are sloped (flared) outward, looking from the side, the distances given by measuring the profile drawing are "foreshortened" and don't give the proper shape for building the fuselage with a flat top longeron  What needs to be done is to "develop" the "true" distances and shape of the flat panel so that when it is curved into position, the longerons lay flat 
Second, understand that the dimensions called for in the plans put a twist in the sides that tends to work the panel in two directions of curvature  This twist makes the panel "undevelopable" meaning that that shape cannot be unrolled into an equivalent flat shape  This is important when laying out the side and bottom panels onto flat plywood  To illustrate this, try forming a piece of paper around a soda can  The paper can be formed flat around the can either straight or at a diagonal to it's length  It has only one direction of curvature and is by definition "developable"  Now try to form the same piece of paper around a baseball  It won't lie flat on the surface without some deformation (folding, wrinkling or tearing) of the paper  The ball has curvature in more that one direction and is a "compounded" shape  Paper (or plywood) can only be readily formed in developable shapes as opposed to aluminum or other metal which can accept in plane deformation  A developable surface is needed to lay out a curved surface when the materials used can't be deformed with any degree of in-plane strain 
Initially, the fuselage sides are laid out flat with reference to the top longeron measured to a straight chalk line  The bowing problem starts when the side panels are bent and sloped to form the fuselage box section  If the sides were not sloped (tumbled home), the section formed would be cylindrical and the longerons would lie flat  Since the sides are tumbled home, the section formed is now conical  When a conical shape is cut with a plane (building surface) not perpendicular to it's axis, the shape formed is elliptical -- exactly what happens with the top longeron  When it's built flat, bent to form a cylindrical section, and sloped to form a conical section, it takes on an elliptical shape firewall to tailstock 
This method borrows heavily from proven techniques used in the marine trades  It should be stressed at this point that although the layout procedure is not complicated, it is important to take your time  If the layout is not going well initially, start over! Better to erase layout errors now than to have them built it and cause surprises later 
Layout to ensure a fair and true fuselage starts by drawing a reference line (baseline) on the building surface  Refer to figures 2 & 3 and use a wire guide to draw a very straight baseline  About 500 lbs  Of tension should be adequate  One could use a chalk line, but we're talking airplanes here, not house framing 
The main layout difference is that the baseline isn't used as a reference for the top longeron  The baseline references the mid point of the firewall for the developed (and true dimensioned) side panel  Although the baseline will still be the reference, the top and bottom longerons will be laid separately 
Layout differences don't end there  Each of the stations (vertical members) will be laid out with a calculated separation so that when the panels are formed into position, they land on the spacing called for in the plans  Another major difference is that the bottom & side panels are applied after forming the fuselage box section  This is mainly to obtain the ability to "fair" the side and bottom surfaces and insure a straight and true shape 
Refer to figure 1 for the layout of the new developed side panel  The firewall (station a) is layed out perpendicular to the baseline  Longitudinal (station) measurements are given along the length of the baseline from the firewall  Vertical dimensions are given to reference the angle and breadths of the station at the baseline 
Notice that the top longeron is bowed outward and that the stations are spaced slightly greater than called out in the plans  When the panels are formed into the box frame section ,they will work into the dimensions specified in the plans 
Strike a centerline, longer than is needed on the building surface using a wire guide  Draw off the firewall line perpendicular to the centerline at one end 
Using the distances listed in the balloons, mark them off on the centerline  Distances are measured to the nearest sixteenth of an inch  Take time to mark them off carefully  Don't mark off the distances in a cumulative fashion  Use the firewall as a common reference 
Using the angles listed at each station, mark off a station line longer than is needed  The angles are measured to the nearest hundredth of a degree  Take time to mark them off carefully 
At each station, start by marking off each short (bottom longeron) line distance from the centerline  Use your set of trammels or beam compass for doing this  Mark the intersection of the short line with the station line 
At each station, mark off each long (top longeron) line distance from the intersection of the short line distance and the station line  Again the trammels or beam compass is best for completing this step  Mark the intersection of the long line distance with the station line 
Using the longeron as a batten, trace out the inside and outside curves of the longeron  After the batten is secure, in between each station, fasten a keeper block inside and outside to preserve the shape of the longeron taking care to avoid potential future interference with the diagonal members to be installed later  The fairing blocks can be removed or left in place if they won't interfere with building  The vertical station members and their diagonals can now be measured and positioned  Remember to refer to the plans for the material thickness direction 
After vertical and diagonal members are cut and fitted, take time to draw their outlines on the building surface to cut down on time and confusion when laying out the opposite side 
Finishing the side panel is accomplished in a manner similar to that called for in the handbook with the exception that the side and bottom skin panels will be attached later 
The next article in the series will discuss jigging and building techniques to ensure alignment and straightness of the flat built side panels  Also covered will be building a "strongback" jig to assure alignment of the side panels when they are formed into their final shape 
Part 3 in the series will cover assembly of the side panels using the jigs  Some joint details will be discussed that will ensure a stronger and more fair fuselage assembly  Also covered will be the layout & attachment of the side and bottom ply skins 
U S  Mail: Densmore Associates, inc 
ANSI "D" size, computer generated plots of all the layout drawings in this series are available from the author for $30 plus postage & handling  Full (true size) scale plots may be made available depending on demand 
"Scarfing" is the practice of splicing plywood so that short pieces of plywood can be used to span long distances  On the KR, it is required on both the fuselage skins and spar webs  The angle of the splice should be 10 to 12 degrees to maintain strength across the joint  Also, joints should coincide with structural members, such as spar webs or fuselage truss members 
This scarfer is made by mating a regular plunge router (this one costs about $50) to a table saw  Obviously, you really only need a table saw to cut the chamfer, but it does make a nice heavy table for scarfing  You could just as easily use a large work table as the base First, set the table saw for a 5 5 degree cut (for a 1:12 joint, or 6 5 degree cut for a 10:1 joint), and run a 1 x 6 through on edge to chamfer a corner on the board  Then drill the board for three router mounting holes (two are countersunk) and connect the assembly to the table saw with two 1/4 inch bolts  Use a long (2-3 inch) straight cutting bit to do the cutting  Adjust the bit so it doesn't interfere with your table top, and go to town  Keep pressure on the plywood to ensure contact with the table while you're scarfing  Make sure you feed your material from the same end as you would if you were sawing, or the router will take your plywood away from you and put a big dent in your garage door 
In the late 60's Ken Rand and Stuart Robinson were working as flight system engineers for Douglas Avionics  Ken was working as an electrical engineer, having previously worked for Sperry as an autopilots project engineer, while Stu's degree was in aeronautical engineering from Northrop University  They were two of the guys at the end of the DC-8,9, and 10 assembly lines responsible for correcting some of the nits and picks in various systems before delivery to the customer 
They both wanted to build a fast, inexpensive airplane which was also economical to maintain  Several designs were considered, and plans were bought first for the Jeanie's Teenie and then the Taylor Monoplane  The Monoplane was more to their liking, but would require some modification to fit their needs  A cooperative redesign effort ensued, with virtually no dimensions left untouched  Only the basic fuselage structure, airfoil, and powerplant were retained  The tail shape was Stu's, and came directly from the big DC-8s parked on the ramp outside his office window  The landing gear was designed by Ken, after seeing the gear on a Dewey Bird at Santa Paula airport 
Ken was killed in his KR2 a short time later while flying over Cajon Pass in what was apparently a bad weather / low fuel accident  Ken's wife Jeanette became owner of RR overnight, and stepped up to keep the plans and parts coming  Much of the engineering needs are handled by Bill Marcy of Denver, who's been helping out since early '79 
To date, almost 6000 KR1, 9200 KR2, and 760 KR2S plan sets have been sold  1200 KR2s are estimated to be flying, with 5 KR2Ss now in the air  Much of the development work done on KR's is now done by the builders themselves  KR builders tend to be innovative, which leads to some interesting modifications  Some of the mods that work eventually creep into the plans  The KR2S is a case in point  Many builders who'd heard of the pitch sensitivity and tight cabin of the KR2 began to build an enlarged version, with the length determined by the most commonly available longeron material  The result is a KR2 that is stretched 2" between firewall and main spar, and 14" behind the main spar  Higher gross weights dictated more wing area, with the new standard becoming the Diehl wing skin  Those who plan to carry passengers commonly stretch the cabin width a few inches, although 1 5 inches is the limit if you still want to use RR's premolded parts 
Mike Stearns addresses the KR Forum crowd 
This year's KR Forum featured guest speakers Mike Stearns, Steve Trentman, and Bill Marcey  Mike Stearns spoke on several topics, including the many sources for KR and homebuilding information available on the Internet  He also mentioned KRNet, the list server devoted entirely to KR aircraft, as well as several notable World Wide Web home pages  He also brought a sample of the new Rand Robinson wing skins with him, and discussed their high temperature core prepreg construction  His KR2S will receive the first set, which is currently being installed at Hinson Composites 
Steve Trentman spoke on his turbine installation  It uses a turbine engine which saw duty as an A7 attack jet starter engine  Total weight is about 85 pounds, while putting out around 90 horsepower  There is a small stockpile of these engines available from government surplus  sources  This engine can only be throttled back to 52% power, which leads to some pretty interesting landings  One inflight failure has been logged so far, with very little damage to the aircraft  More on this exciting development in next month's issue of KROnline 
Les Palmer's KR2 N202LP won Best KR2, Best Engine Installation, and People's Choice awards at the 1995 KR Gathering at Columbia, TN  After researching the KR series, and reading Neil Bingham's "A Critical Analysis of the KR2" (Jan 88 Sport Aviation), Les decided to build his as a single seater, stretched 24" in the tail, while maintaining a stock width firewall  His fuselage is made from Douglas fir, which weighs in at 4 lbs heavier than if constructed from spruce  It is skinned with 1/8" birch plywood  Spars are covered with plywoood on both fore and aft sides, ala KR2S  Diehl wing skins provide the lift  Horizontal stabilizer and elevator were stretched 7" longer on each side, while the vertical stabilizer and rudder were stretched 8" taller    The fuselage to cowling junction was made more graceful by adding 1 5 inches to the height of the firewall end of the fuselage sides 
Les's canopy is a Dragonfly, using a four linkage system to swing forward when opening  The canopy frame fits snugly into a recess in the foward deck, providing an excellent wind and water seal  The fiberglass work is exemplary 
Seating is luxurious for one 
The cowling is also a work of art, and uses NACA ducts for efficiency  Female molds were made for all the fiberglass parts on Les's plane, so he could proabably be persuaded to make more, if demand dictates  Les also machines a multitude of KR aluminum and steel parts which he now offers for sale 
The firewall was reinforced with aluminum brackets and angles bolted between the longerons in anticipation of the 200 lb Subaru EA-81 engine installation  His 100 HP Asian version is outfitted with an American Holley 5200 caburetor and manifold  It uses a PSRU of Les's own design, featuring two spur gears with a 1 69:1 reduction ratio and a toothed belt  Other than tapping the crank for larger bolts to mount the redrive, no other engine modifications were required  Also, this is probably the only air conditioned KR2 on the planet  The prop is a 60/63 Hegy 
Originally built as a taildragger, the fixed gear is made from 4130 steel tubing  Custom cast 6 00x6 aluminum wheels and steel rotors are mated with 6" Cleveland calipers for braking  An early taxi test accident damaged the main gear, and prompted Les to change to tricycle gear  Again, he designed his own fiberglass main gear, and uses a Diehl nose wheel fork with a 4130 strut and 6" wheel up front 
Early tests revealed cooling problems, which prompted a radiator move from the firewall to a lower cowling location 
The first flight was almost a disaster, as test pilot Randy Smith lost power right after takeoff  He managed a 180 with a safe downwind landing with only minor nosewheel pant damage  The culprit proved to be a spark plug with too much reach, which was quickly remedied  Subsequent flights have shown water temp to be about 210 degrees, oil temp is 220-230, and airspeed is about 180 mph 
Shopping for the Partially Built KR 
This story starts about twenty years ago when I first started looking at the KR-2 as the plane I'd like to build  The only problem at that time was a lack of money, lack of knowledge, and a lack of job stability  I liked the design, except for the low ground clearance of the retractable gear and that a KR was going to be a tight fit for me to fly 
Over the past twenty years I've owned a number of planes, but still always wanted to build my own  I needed one that would fit me, my budget requirements, and have the speed and performance that I wanted  When "KITPLANES" published the article featuring Roy Marsh's new KR-2S, it was the first I had heard of any major modifications or improvements to the same old KR design  I believe that article and Roy Marsh's workmanship have probably been the greatest boon to Rand Robinson (RR) in the last twenty years  It certainly caught my eye! Here was the same design I had decided I wanted to build twenty years ago, with all of the improvements I wanted  It was sitting on fixed gear with some reasonable ground clearance  It had the capability to be built large enough to accommodate me  It has enough prefab parts available that it didn't have to be 100% scratch built if I decided to hurry the project along  And it had the speed I wanted  I knew that Roy's published speeds were probably not realistic expectations for the average KR, but after knocking around for the last three years in my Champ, anything over 90 mph seems pretty fast to me 
After purchasing the info kit and the sales video from Rand Robinson, the next step after deciding for sure to build this plane was to order the KR-2 plans and the KR-2S addendum  I finally got my plans and was putting together my first order to start the plane, when my partner in the Champ pointed out that there was a partially completed KR-2S for sale in Trade-a-plane  My initial answer was "No, I don't even want to look at it  I want to build my own from scratch " My partner insisted that for the advertised price and the fact that it wasn't too far away, I ought to at least give the guy a call and investigate it  "No, I don't think I want to buy someone else's problems," I persisted  That night I went home and crunched up some numbers on the calculator and finally came to the conclusion that for the sake of my budget for the next several years, I really should give this guy a call 
Three days later, I flew to his place about 400 miles away to take a look at his project  At this point I should probably mention that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about airplane construction, although the vast majority of my experience is with tube and fabric  The rest of this article deals with what I looked for and more importantly what I missed and have had to repair in the last year since I purchased the project 
When we went to the seller's house, I found that the left wing was built using the Dan Diehl wing skins and the right wing skins were leaning against the wall inside the house  Also the canopy was in the house with the canopy covered with paper and tape  I wanted to inspect the fuselage first, so off we went to the shop 
There I found a fuselage sitting on it's gear painted in primer gray  The first step was to inspect the quality of workmanship of what could be seen as it sat  The interior of the fuselage looked as if it had been built with a great deal of care  The fit and finish of all of the interior wood was very nice  Even the gussets looked like they had been painstakingly perfectly fitted  The glass work on the turtle back also looked very precise and clean  It was evenly faired into the vertical and horizontal stabs  The tail also appeared to be well built with the exception of a depression directly over the front and rear spars in the horizontal stabs  He explained that when he moved recently, that he had shot the plane with gray primer to protect it from the weather since he wouldn't have ready access to a shop to put it in right away  It ended up sitting out in the hot south Texas summer sun for a few weeks before he got a shop rented to work in  That caused the glass (or possibly the foam inside the horizontal stab) to swell, except that it held onto the spar, so it was slightly ballooned in front of and behind the spars  His recommendation was to fill it back smooth with micro 
I also found a small linear crack in the lower left wing spar cap on the left wing stub  It appeared to be from over tightening the rear spar wing attach fitting bolts  His explanation was that the crack wasn't important because the rear spars only job is to keep the wings from folding back  I also noticed that the holes for attaching the outer wing to the wing stub were badly rounded out on the rear spar  He explained that the Diehl wing skins require the rear spar to be swept slightly more forward than the stock wings  This won't allow you to use the rear spar attach fittings from RR and that I would need to fabricate a new set of rear spar attach fittings 
I also found that the aileron bellcranks were not built or installed as per plans, but found that they looked professional  I couldn't check for function since the right bellcrank and sheeve wasn't installed, the left wing also wasn't installed, and the right wing didn't exist yet 
Next we pulled the inspection panels off of the fuselage and tail and looked at everything I could see with a good flashlight  I didn't find anything else that might be questionable about the fuselage except for a cracked elevator trim tab that was damaged when it fell off it's hanging place on the wall 
Next we spent some time going over his builders log and builders photo album  I still hadn't seen anything that would dissuade me from buying this project 
At this point it was starting to get late and my ride down needed to get airborne for the flight home  I needed to make a decision about whether I wanted this project or not, but I hadn't inspected the wings and canopy yet  I took a cursory look at the left wing and saw lots on micro built up on it and some bubbles in the leading edge, but nothing that looked seriously wrong to my amateur eye  The right wing was only a set of spars in the shop and the Diehl wing skins in the house, so there wasn't much to look at there  The canopy was wrapped in paper and tape, so there wasn't much to look at there either  I decided that even if there were serious problems in the wing that was built, I would be money ahead to go ahead and buy the project  For the advertised price, I could build a new set of wings and still be way ahead financially  We negotiated a final price, shook hands, took my ride to the airport, and started off in search of a U-haul to haul the project home 
Now, at this point, some of you are thinking about what I surely must have forgotten to inspect and why didn't I take a local A & P or EAA member along for the ride  First of all, I don't know any mechanics locally that have any experience with glass and our EAA chapter of which I am VP is woefully lacking in fiberglass knowledge  Secondly, as you will see, I missed plenty  Some by ignorance, some by just not looking close enough 
Now for a list of the problems that I found over the last year and a few of the fixes that I came up with 
I found that the lower set of rear spar attach fittings on the left rear spar were installed backwards with the longer spaced hole towards the fuselage  Since this is the same place that also had the cracked spar cap, it required a major change  Also in the same area he had drilled through the rear spar with a hole saw to create a place for the aileron cable to pass through and managed to cut out the second from the outside vertical brace in the spar  Then he chose to install the aileron bellcranks in front of the rear spar, and cut another hole through the rear spar for the aileron push rod  He also managed to cut out the outside vertical brace in the spar  Since the holes were already drilled through the spar, the choices were to either cut out that section of spar cap and scarf a new piece in, cut the whole rear spar carrythrough out of the fuselage including ruining the left lower wing skin, or do something else creative to reinforce the spar cap and install a custom built set of attach fittings 
I also found that after I built and installed the right side wing stub ribs and skin that the aileron bellcrank setup would not work as installed  The cable that crosses between the two bellcranks had a sharp uphill from the sheeve to the bellcrank in the last 12 inches on either side  This combined with the radius that the bellcranks turn caused the cross cable to pull up tight when the ailerons were pushed to either end of their travel, but allowed the cables to go very slack when the ailerons were centered  Also the Aileron pushrods needed to pass directly through the lower set of rear wing attach fittings to attach to the aileron  This whole rear spar and aileron bellcrank setup was going to either have to be redesigned or cut out and built to plans  The bottom line is that the problems I observed when I inspected this part were much more serious than expected when I had to fix it 
I decided that I had to remove the rear fittings from the left wing to be replaced with the new set that my neighborhood machinist was cutting out for me  When I put the wing on the work bench to start removing the rear fittings, I thought I had better take a closer look at the bubbles in the leading edge  I found that as I pushed on the leading edge, it delaminated between the glass lay-up on top and the upper and lower wing skin edges that were floxed together underneath  I concluded that that area had to come apart and took a belt sander to the leading edge  What I found was that the leading edge had been floxed together and glassed over, but the mold release had never been scrubbed off the leading edge of the wing  It peeled apart for rebuild quite easily 
When I got back to removing the rear spar attach fittings, I noticed that the woodwork inside the wing looked awfully dull  The reason was that the wing had been closed up without varnishing any of the woodwork  This was rectified with a small hole saw, a number of extensions and a modified undercoating sprayer 
I also found that the aluminum drain fitting in the bottom of the left wing tank had been glassed into place upside down  The tapered pipe threads were tapered the wrong way to install the draincock into the tank  Retapping the fitting the right direction seemed to be a good fix for that problem 
When I finally got around to attaching the wing to the fuselage, I found that the front spar attach fittings were badly misaligned  Although they could be forced into alignment, I didn't think I needed that kind of preload on the main spar fittings  This problem was fixed by calling on my local neighborhood machinist to build me an aligning fixture and reaming the attach holes to the next larger size and ordering the new sized bolts 
On the fuselage I found that although it had new Cleveland wheels and brakes on it, one of the brakes had a severe wobble to it  I must complement the manufacturers for taking care of that problem  One call to the Cleveland factory and they shipped me a new set of wheels and brakes even though the receipt for this set was over four years old and in the original builders name  Their only concern was that this set had never been placed in service yet 
I chose to sand the load of micro off the left wing to see what it was covering  When I got down to the glass, I found that there was no glass for the aft inch and a half of the underside of the wing in front of the aileron hinge  With the Diehl wing skins, you build the wings, then cut the ailerons out of trailing edge of the wing  He had mismeasured and cut too much material off the bottom side of the trailing edge in front of the aileron  It was filled by floxing a piece of spruce into the gap to fill the space between the back edge of the fiberglass and the aileron mount  I chose to wrap the trailing edge of that wing, and the other wing to match with a couple of lay-ups of glass 
When I sanded the primer off the aforementioned damaged trim tab, I found that the hinge was floxed to the leading edge of the foam insides of the tab, but not the glass  I also chose to wrap the front of the trim tab with a lay-up of glass 
I decided to pull the paper off the canopy and take a look at it before I'm ready to bolt it on and fly  The original builder had blown his own canopy and after some of the previous problems, I was beginning to have some concerns about not having looked it over closely enough  The canopy turned out to have been blow a little too large  It ended up with a little larger bubble for headroom, which I didn't object to  However, it had more headroom on the right side than the left  Yes, it was just a little bit lopsided  The main problem was that the canopy is stretched thin enough that it can be easily pushed in with one hand when the weather is warm   My fear was that this is just thin enough that it may decide to lay on my head or in my lap when flying on a warm day  It will have to be replaced 
I'm sure that many that are reading this could see several of the potential problems before I mentioned them, but some others may not have and I'm sure that there could have been many other problems that didn't but could have existed on this project  This is also not intended to be critical of the gentleman that started this project as many parts of it, especially the wood work are better than I could have done and much of his work is outstanding  I prefer to think that I'll end up with a better plane with his woodwork combined with my glasswork  This article is intended to feature some of the problems that you may run into in buying someone else's project 
The final question is, knowing what I have found over the past year, would I have still purchased this project  The answer is yes, but primarily because the price was right in that I am still money and work ahead of where I would be if I had started the project from scratch  There are a few things that I would have done differently, but nothing that I can't live with  Although I won't be able to say that I built it all from scratch, I have built and rebuild enough of the plane that I should have no problem qualifying under the 51% rule 
You can send comments directly to the author via e-mail at "jscott@LANL GOV" 
Here is an brief explanation of how I built my turtledecks  The jig was constructed from scrap plywood and a few 1x4s that I ripped into stringers  I made two temporary bulkheads from the plywood, one for each end  Remember the forward bulkhead needs to be shaped in a way that will closely match the aft end of your canopy frame  Make an aft bulkhead by placing a straight edge at the top of your forward bulkhead and the trailing edge of your horizontal stabilizer  This will give you an idea of how tall your aft bulkhead needs to be  As far as location, I placed my aft bulkhead just forward of the lower/front of my vertical fin  I constructed the jig on the fuselage, it is glued together with automotive bondo 
After the bulkheads were bondoed to the fuselage I used the stringers that I ripped from the 1x4s and bondoed them to the bulkheads  This gave me a male form to cover with thin plastic or posterboard  I stapled two layers of posterboard to the jig(thin plastic would work better)  The posterboard wraps down two inches onto the fuselage  After I was satisfied with the way it looked, I then covered the entire thing with duct tape (fiberglass will not stick to duct tape) On top of this I wetout one layer of tri-ply cloth (22oz) that I had left over from an earlier project, and one layer of 8oz  bid  Remember to mask off your fuselage so you don't get epoxy on it  If you are not familiar with composite lay-ups, you should plan on razor cutting your lay-ups 4 to 6 hours after wetout while the lay-up is still soft enough to cut with a razorblade 
After the lay-up cured (2 or 3 days) it was removed from the jig, and the jig was removed from the fuselage and discarded  (be careful, the bondo sticks very well to the spruce, you could splinter your wood during removal) I now have a fiberglass skin that tends to hold the shape of the jig but is still flexible enough to work with  I made two bulkheads out of 1/4 last-a-foam (AS&S) using the plywood formers from the jig as a guide  I covered these foam bulkheads with one 8oz layer of glass on each side, with a glass to glass edge on the bottom  After cure these bulkheads were bondoed into place (to the fuselage)and the fiberglass skin was pulled down tight and floxed to the bulkheads  When the flox cured the bondo joints were broken, again being careful not to harm the wood  The turtledeck was removed from the fuselage and 2 inch tapes added to the bulkheads inside and out 
At this point the turtledeck looked great and only weighed about 5lbs  but I noticed you could deform the skin by pushing hard on the outside  So I flipped the turtledeck over and from 1/4 inch last-a-foam, I cut two inch wide strips that would run the entire length, forward and aft inside the turtledeck  In effect these would act as composite stringers, I made enough of these two inch wide strips to make up three stringers  One down the center (sort of a backbone) and one on each side of the "backbone" half the distance to the edge of the turtledeck  I sanded the edge of the foam so that when covered with a layer of bid @ 45degrees there would be a nice transition from the turtledeck skin up onto the foam and then back onto the turtledeck I scuff sanded and glued the foam stringers in with micro  I covered the foam stringers with one layer of 8oz bid @ 45degrees 
You can also send me email at: mikemims@pacbell net if you have any questions or want to share your ideas 
KROnline is an online KR Newsletter devoted to sharing KR information with other builders and pilots in a timely manner  The first issue (September 96) is now available as a zipped MicroSoft Word file at http://members aol com/bshadr or as an html document at kronline9 html  If you'd like to submit articles or photos, email Randy Stein at BSHADR@aol com ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't bother to email Randy though  KROnline has been retired since the KR Newsletter has improved 



ground_truth: 62.

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 2: 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



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 is the purpose of the baseline in the layout procedure?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 4:  The best performing model checkpoint was chosen according to the epoch-wise validation macro-F1 score  5 Experiments and Results

Experiments using Large Language Models

For the task of Dialect Identification we have tried various language specific models like XLM-RoBERTa, BERT, ELECTRA, RoBERTa and GPT- 2  The base variant of all these models were used and all the models were used through the Hugging-Face library  The pooler output of these models was passed through a linear layer and the models were fine-tuned 
First, we experimented with different models for Track-1  All the models were trained for 20 epochs with learning rate 1e-6, weight decay 1e-6 and a batch size of 8  We used XLM-RoBERTa as the baseline for all 3 languages  The best performing models for the English language were RoBERTa and BERT whereas GPT-2 was the worst performing 
Similarly the language specific versions of RoBERTa and BERT performed well for the Spanish and Portuguese respectively  Overall the worst performing model was GPT-2 across all 3 languages  The validation F1 scores are present in Table   The two best-performing models for every language were chosen for Track-2 
The same procedure as specified above was used and the F1 scores are present in Table   The train and validation F1 scores for 2-class classification are higher for all models as compared to the F1 score of the same models for 3-class classification  This was mainly due to the poor representation and accuracy of classification of the third class 
We observed symptoms of overfitting in all models after 12-15 epochs and the best validation F1 score was obtained in the range of 4-8 epochs 

LID experiments

The pipeline for dialect identification is divided into two parts as the sentences in the dataset belong to different languages  The stages are described in Section 4  The XLM-RoBERTa we have used for language classification has a test accuracy of 99 6% meaning it correctly classifies all input sentences and hence, can be considered as a perfect classifier 
For the final pipeline we experimented using the two best performing models for each language in Track-1 and Track-2  For both the tracks we experimented with all 8 (2 3 ) possible combinations of models and calculated the validation F1 score for the combined validation dataset which had sentences belonging to all languages 
The validation scores for Track-1 and Track-2 are shown in Table and Table respectively  For both the tracks, the three pipelines with the best validation F1 scores were chosen for submission 

Using 3-way classifier as a 2-way classifier

In Track-1, participants are expected to train a classifier which classifies amongst 9 classes, and in Track-2, participants are expected to train a classifier which classifies amongst 6 classes  These 6 classes are a proper subset of the 9 classes from Track-1  Thus, an intuitive baseline for Track-2 is to use the model finetuned for Track-1, whilst considering only the relevant classes for the latter task 
The classes EN , ES and P T , i e  the classes without any national dialect associated with them are not included in Track-2 as compared to Track-1  Thus, we calculate the predictions for the Track-2 validation dataset using the models for Track-1 and exclude the metrics for Track-1 specific classes to get the metrics for this "adapted" 2-way classification 
We show the results of this experiment in Table and observe that, as expected, the adapted 2-way classification performs worse compared to the explicitly finetuned variant 

Results for Track-1 and Track-2

We now present our experiments and their performance for both tracks  Our experiments for Track-1 are described in Table and our experiments for Track-2 are described in Table   The participants were allowed three submissions for evaluation on the test set, so we submitted predictions using the three systems which performed the best on the validation set 
As mentioned in Section 5 2, we performed 2 3 , i e  a total of 8 experiments using the two best models for each language  We observed that RoBERTa base on English, Spanish BERT base on Spanish and Portuguese BERT base performed the best on the testing set for Track-1  The same combination, with RoBERTa base for English, worked best for Track-2 
All of our submissions were the top submissions for each track, which surpassed the next best competitors by a margin of 4 5% and 5 6% for Track-1 and Track-2 respectively 

Ablation of best submissions

We hereby make some observations of our submissions and other experiments  To assist this, we plot the confusion matrices of our best submissions for Track-1 and Track-2 in Figures respectively  Note that these confusion matrices have their rows (i e  true labels axes) normalized according to the number of samples in the class 
Here are observations from our experiments: 1  BERT-based models outperform other models across all languages: We observe that BERT-based models outperform ELECTRA-based and GPT-2-based models, as shown in Table   We speculate this is because of the inherent architecture of BERT, which combines semantic learning with knowledge retention 
This combination of traits is particularly useful for this task  2  Common labels perform the worst across all languages: We observe that the common labels EN , ES and P T perform the worst, both in the individual as well as the two-stage setup  We hypothesize this is because of the absence of dialect specific words, or words that are specific to the geographical origin of the national dialect (for example, "Yankees" for EN-US and "Oxford" for EN-GB) 
3  English models work better than models of other languages: It can be noted from Figures 4 and 3 that the English models have the best performance across all classes  This can be attributed to two reasons: absence of national dialect specific words and lesser pretraining data in the case of Portuguese 
4  British English is most correctly classified class: We can observe that the Spanish or Portuguese models make equal number of mistakes in the case of either national dialect, in the case of Track-2 (see Figure )  However, in the case of English, the label EN − GB is correctly classified for more than 95% of the cases 
We speculate this is because British English involves slightly distinctive grammar and semantics, which help the model separate it from other classes  5  The proposed 2-step method is scalable for multiple language dialect classification: We can strongly assert that the novel 2-step deep learning method for multilingual dialect classification is a scalable method for the task due to two specific reasons: firstly, the multilingual models (like XLM-RoBERTa) might not have the vocabulary as well as the learning capabilities to learn the minute differences between individual dialects 
Secondly, this system can be quickly expanded for a new language by simply adding a language specific dialect classifier, provided the language identification model supports that particular language 

Conclusion

In this paper we propose a two-stage classification pipeline for dialect identification for multilingual corpora  We conduct thorough ablations on this setup and provide valuable insights  We foresee multiple future directions for this work  The first is to expand this work to many languages and dialects 
Secondly, it is a worthwhile research direction to distill this multi-model setup into a single model with multiple prediction heads  The obvious limitation of this system is the excessive memory consumption due to the usage of language specific models  For low resource languages this system is difficult to train and scale 
We hope that these problems will be addressed by researchers in future works 



ground_truth: The baseline is used as a reference for the mid point of the firewall for the developed side panel.