his dependent claims, our decision is based on a different ground than the Board’s, and we think it is appropriate to separately consider dependent claims 15, 30, 44, and 58. Each of these claims adds the following limitation to its corresponding independent claim: “wherein access to the mandatory arbitration is established through the Internet, intranet, World Wide Web, software applications, telephone, television, cable, video [or radio], magnetic, electronic communication, or other communications means.” When an unpatentable mental process is combined with a machine, the combination may produce patentable subject matter, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Diehr and our own decisions in State Street Bank and AT & T have confirmed. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178-79, 192-93, 101 S.Ct. 1048 (<HOLDING>); AT & T, 172 F.3d at 1355, 1361 (holding
holding that absent extraordinary circumstances the press has a common law right to inspect and copy the videotape of depositions used at trial where the witness is unable to provide live testimony privacy interests of an ill witness were not sufficiently extraordinary to preclude press access holding patentable a process for curing rubber that used a mathematical algorithm to determine when to open the molding press holding patentable a method for analyzing electrocardiograph signals for the detection of a specific heart condition that used electronic equipment programmed to perform mathematical computation holding contractors could not claim recreational immunity because they had no continuing authority to determine whether the land should be open to the public holding that the press lacks standing to assert the free speech rights of another when the person subject to the gag order has not challenged it