In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same; Notice of Decision to Review in its Entirety a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section 337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions; Extension of Target Date, 6454-6455 [05-2261]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6454
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices
corridors through the Santa Nella
community. The Service considers
movement corridors, which would
facilitate population interchange
between northern and southern kit fox
populations, to be of critical importance
to the survival of the species. The No
Action Alternative would not provide
for the long-term conservation of kit fox
in the area because conservation lands
and movement corridors would not be
permanently established.
Pursuant to an order issued on June
10, 2004, by the District Court for the
District of Columbia in Spirit of the Sage
Council v. Norton Civil Action No. 98–
1873 (D.D.C.), the Service is enjoined
from issuing new section 10(a)(1)(B)
permits or related documents containing
‘‘No Surprises’’ assurances, as defined
by the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’ rule
published at 63 FR 8859 (February 23,
1998), until such time as the Service
adopts new permit revocation rules
specifically applicable to section
10(a)(1)(B) permits in compliance with
the public notice and comment
requirements of the Administrative
Procedures Act. This notice concerns a
step in the review and processing of a
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and any
subsequent permit issuance will be in
accordance with the Court’s order. Until
such time as the June 10, 2004, order
has been rescinded or the Service’s
authority to issue permits with ‘‘No
Surprises’’ assurances has been
otherwise reinstated, the Service will
not approve any incidental take permits
or related documents that contain ‘‘No
Surprises’’ assurances.
This notice is provided pursuant to
section 10(a) of the Act and the
regulations of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments
that we receive, including names and
addresses, will become part of the
official administrative record and may
be made available to the public. We will
evaluate the application, associated
documents, and comments submitted
thereon to determine whether the
application meets the requirements of
NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of
the Act. If we determine that those
requirements are met, we will issue a
permit to the Applicant for the
incidental take of the kit fox. We will
make our final permit decision no
sooner than 30 days from the date of
this notice.
Dated: January 28, 2005.
Mike Boylen,
Deputy Manager, California/Nevada
Operations Office, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 05–2250 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:38 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337–TA–501]
In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated
Integrated Circuit Devices and
Products Containing Same; Notice of
Decision to Review in its Entirety a
Final Initial Determination Finding No
Violation of Section 337; Schedule for
Filing Written Submissions; Extension
of Target Date
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined (1) to
review in its entirety a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the
presiding administrative law judge
(‘‘ALJ’’) on November 18, 2004, finding
no violation of section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
above-captioned investigation; and (2)
to extend the target date for completion
in this investigation by thirty-seven (37)
days, i.e., until March 31, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
205–3115. Copies of the public version
of the IDs and all nonconfidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business
hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the
Office of the Secretary, U.S.
International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,
telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that
information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810. General information
concerning the Commission may also be
obtained by accessing its Internet server
(https://www.usitc.gov). The public
record for this investigation may be
viewed on the Commission’s electronic
docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 19, 2003, the Commission
instituted an investigation under section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
1337, based on a complaint filed by
Amkor Technology, Inc. alleging a
violation of section 337 in the
importation, sale for importation, and
sale within the United States after
importation of certain encapsulated
integrated circuit devices and products
containing same in connection with
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,433,277 (‘‘the ‘277 patent’’);
claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
6,630,728 (‘‘the ‘728 patent’’); and
claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No.
6,455,356 (‘‘the ‘356 patent’’). 68 FR
70836 (December 19, 2003). The
complainant named Carsem (M) Sdn
Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd;
and Carsem, Inc. as respondents.
The evidentiary hearing in this
investigation was held from July 6
through July 30, 2004, and August 9
through August 11, 2004. On November
18, 2004, the presiding ALJ issued a
final ID finding no violation of section
337. All of the parties to the
investigation, including the Commission
investigative attorney filed timely
petitions for review of various portions
of the final ID. Respondents designated
their petition to be contingent upon the
granting of any other petition for review
or upon the Commission’s reviewing the
ALJ’s ID on its own motion pursuant to
19 CFR 210.44. All parties filed timely
responses to the petitions for review.
Having examined the record in this
investigation, including the ALJ’s final
ID, the petitions for review, and the
responses thereto, the Commission has
determined to review the ID in its
entirety. At this time the Commission
requests briefing, based on the
evidentiary record, that concerns only
the issue of claim interpretation. Further
briefing may be requested at a later date.
The Commission is particularly
interested in receiving answers to the
following questions:
1. Does the specification of the ‘277
patent satisfy the ‘‘written description’’
requirement of 35 U.S.C.112, ¶ 1 with
respect to the claim limitations ‘‘fully
around a circumference of the die pad’’
found in claims 2, 3, and 4, and ‘‘fully
around the die pad’’ found in claims 21,
22, and 23?
2. How should the following claim
limitations be construed:
(a) ‘‘Fully around a circumference of
the die pad’’ (‘277 patent, claims 2, 3,
and 4);
(b) ‘‘fully around the die pad’’ (‘277
patent, claims 21, 22, and 23);
(c) ‘‘surrounding the second surface’’
(‘356 patent, claims 1 and 13);
(d) ‘‘the side surface of the die pad
includes a means around the
circumference of the die pad for
vertically locking,’’ (‘277 patent, claim
17)?
In particular, please address whether
the claim limitations ‘‘fully around a
circumference of the die pad’’ and
‘‘fully around the die pad’’ are
indefinite.
3. How should the following claim
terms of the ‘356 patent be construed:
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices
(a) ‘‘Horizontal peripheral third
surface’’ (claims 1, 13);
(b) ‘‘vertical outer peripheral surface’’
(claims 1, 13); and
(c) ‘‘horizontal third surface’’ (claim
1)?
4. How should the following claim
limitations be construed:
(a) ‘‘The second surface of the die pad
is exposed in the plane of the first
exterior surface of the package body’’
(‘277 patent, claim 18); and
(b) ‘‘the second surface of each lead is
exposed in a horizontal plane of a first
exterior surface of the package’’ (‘356
patent, claims 1, 13)?
In particular, please address how
plating affects whether ‘‘the second
surface of the die pad’’ in claim 18 of
the ‘277 patent and ‘‘the second surface
of each lead’’ in claims 1 and 13 of the
‘356 patent are ‘‘exposed.’’
5. Do the preambles of claims 1 and
3 of the ‘728 patent constitute claim
limitations? In particular, please address
how the intrinsic evidence supports
your position in light of the teachings of
the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
Written Submissions: Submissions
should be concise and thoroughly
referenced to the record in this
investigation. The written submissions
must be filed no later than close of
business on February 14, 2005. Reply
submissions must be filed no later than
the close of business on February 22,
2005. No further submissions will be
permitted unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions
must file with the Office of the Secretary
the original document and 14 true
copies thereof on or before the deadlines
stated above. Any person desiring to
submit a document (or portion thereof)
to the Commission in confidence must
request confidential treatment unless
the information has already been
granted such treatment during the
proceedings. All such requests should
be directed to the Secretary of the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR § 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is sought will be treated
accordingly. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
sections 210.42–210.45 and 210.51 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
VerDate jul<14>2003
21:57 Feb 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
Procedure (19 CFR §§ 210.42–210.45
and 210.51).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 1, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–2261 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Emergency
Review; Comment Request
February 1, 2005.
The Department of Labor has
submitted the following information
collection request (ICR), utilizing
emergency review procedures, to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–
13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). OMB
approval has been requested by March
9, 2005. A copy of this ICR, with
applicable supporting documentation,
may be obtained by calling the
Department of Labor’s Departmental
Clearance Officer, Ira L. Mills at (202)
693–4122 (this is not a toll-free
number); via e-mail at: millsira@dol.gov; or (202) 693–7755 (TTY).
The State Planning Guidance may also
be found at the Web site—https://
www.doleta.gov/usworkforce.
Comments and questions about the
ICR listed below should be forwarded to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Employment and Training
Administration, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503.
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6455
(e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.)
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Title: Planning Guidance and
Instructions for Submission of the
Strategic Five Year State Plan for Title
I of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (WIA) and the Wagner Peyser Act.
OMB Number: 1205–0398.
Frequency: Every five years.
Type of Response: Reporting.
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal
Government.
Total Respondents: 59.
Number of Responses: 59.
Total Burden: 1,475.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Cost): $ 0.
Total Annual Costs (Operating/
Maintaining Systems or Purchasing
Services): $ 0.
Description: All current WIA State
Plans will expire June 30, 2005. It is
unlikely that Congress will pass a
reauthorized Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) before that time. Therefore, the
enclosed Proposed WIA Planning
Guidance is designed to advise States
about how to continue their WIA Title
I and Wagner Peyser Act programs
under Public Law 105–220.
Ira L. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–2441 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–55,518]
BASF Corporation, Freeport, TX;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
On January 12, 2005, the Department
of Labor issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration applicable to the
subject firm. The Notice will soon be
published in the Federal Register.
The initial investigation found that
workers are separately identifiable by
product line (polycaprolactum, oxo,
diols, and acrylic monomers), that
polycaprolactum, oxo and diol
production increased during the
relevant period, and that the subject
company neither increased imports of
acrylic monomers during the relevant
period nor shifted acrylic monomer
production abroad.
The petitioner asserted in the request
for reconsideration that the worker
E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM
07FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 24 (Monday, February 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6454-6455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Inv. No. 337-TA-501]
In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices
and Products Containing Same; Notice of Decision to Review in its
Entirety a Final Initial Determination Finding No Violation of Section
337; Schedule for Filing Written Submissions; Extension of Target Date
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined (1) to review in its entirety a final initial
determination (``ID'') issued by the presiding administrative law judge
(``ALJ'') on November 18, 2004, finding no violation of section 337 of
the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned
investigation; and (2) to extend the target date for completion in this
investigation by thirty-seven (37) days, i.e., until March 31, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of the
public version of the IDs and all nonconfidential documents filed in
connection with this investigation are or will be available for
inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing-
impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by
accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record
for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic
docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 19, 2003, the Commission
instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of
1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Amkor Technology,
Inc. alleging a violation of section 337 in the importation, sale for
importation, and sale within the United States after importation of
certain encapsulated integrated circuit devices and products containing
same in connection with claims 1-4, 7, 17, 18 and 20-23 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,433,277 (``the `277 patent''); claims 1-4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent
No. 6,630,728 (``the `728 patent''); and claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,455,356 (``the `356 patent''). 68 FR 70836 (December 19,
2003). The complainant named Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor
Sdn Bhd; and Carsem, Inc. as respondents.
The evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held from July 6
through July 30, 2004, and August 9 through August 11, 2004. On
November 18, 2004, the presiding ALJ issued a final ID finding no
violation of section 337. All of the parties to the investigation,
including the Commission investigative attorney filed timely petitions
for review of various portions of the final ID. Respondents designated
their petition to be contingent upon the granting of any other petition
for review or upon the Commission's reviewing the ALJ's ID on its own
motion pursuant to 19 CFR 210.44. All parties filed timely responses to
the petitions for review.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the
ALJ's final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto,
the Commission has determined to review the ID in its entirety. At this
time the Commission requests briefing, based on the evidentiary record,
that concerns only the issue of claim interpretation. Further briefing
may be requested at a later date. The Commission is particularly
interested in receiving answers to the following questions:
1. Does the specification of the `277 patent satisfy the ``written
description'' requirement of 35 U.S.C.112, ] 1 with respect to the
claim limitations ``fully around a circumference of the die pad'' found
in claims 2, 3, and 4, and ``fully around the die pad'' found in claims
21, 22, and 23?
2. How should the following claim limitations be construed:
(a) ``Fully around a circumference of the die pad'' (`277 patent,
claims 2, 3, and 4);
(b) ``fully around the die pad'' (`277 patent, claims 21, 22, and
23);
(c) ``surrounding the second surface'' (`356 patent, claims 1 and
13);
(d) ``the side surface of the die pad includes a means around the
circumference of the die pad for vertically locking,'' (`277 patent,
claim 17)?
In particular, please address whether the claim limitations ``fully
around a circumference of the die pad'' and ``fully around the die
pad'' are indefinite.
3. How should the following claim terms of the `356 patent be
construed:
[[Page 6455]]
(a) ``Horizontal peripheral third surface'' (claims 1, 13);
(b) ``vertical outer peripheral surface'' (claims 1, 13); and
(c) ``horizontal third surface'' (claim 1)?
4. How should the following claim limitations be construed:
(a) ``The second surface of the die pad is exposed in the plane of
the first exterior surface of the package body'' (`277 patent, claim
18); and
(b) ``the second surface of each lead is exposed in a horizontal
plane of a first exterior surface of the package'' (`356 patent, claims
1, 13)?
In particular, please address how plating affects whether ``the
second surface of the die pad'' in claim 18 of the `277 patent and
``the second surface of each lead'' in claims 1 and 13 of the `356
patent are ``exposed.''
5. Do the preambles of claims 1 and 3 of the `728 patent constitute
claim limitations? In particular, please address how the intrinsic
evidence supports your position in light of the teachings of the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Written Submissions: Submissions should be concise and thoroughly
referenced to the record in this investigation. The written submissions
must be filed no later than close of business on February 14, 2005.
Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on
February 22, 2005. No further submissions will be permitted unless
otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the
Secretary the original document and 14 true copies thereof on or before
the deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document
(or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request
confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted
such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such
treatment. See section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 19 CFR Sec. 201.6. Documents for which confidential
treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. All
nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in sections 210.42-210.45 and 210.51 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Sec. Sec. 210.42-210.45 and 210.51).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: February 1, 2005.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-2261 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
