In the Matter of Certain Unified Communications Systems, Products Used With Such Systems, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Decision to Reverse-in-Part and Modify-in-Part a Final Initial Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and Termination of the Investigation With a Finding of No Violation, 30161-30163 [E8-11578]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
Peabody also stated its intention to
amend the pending permit revision
application for the Black Mesa Mine
Complex to remove proposed plans and
activities that supported supplying coal
to MGS. By amending the permit
revision application, the proposed
project would be reduced to permitting
the Black Mesa Complex mining
operations as described and analyzed as
Alternative B of the draft EIS.
Alternative B is now the preferred
alternative.
II. Background on the Black Mesa
Project EIS
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), OSM prepared a draft EIS
analyzing the effects of the proposed
Black Mesa Project. It analyzed effects of
the following three alternatives.
Alternative A
• Approval of Peabody’s life-of-mine
permit revision for the Black Mesa Mine
Complex (Black Mesa and Kayenta
Mines), including mining of coal to
supply the Mohave Generating Station,
a new coal wash plant and associated
coal waste disposal, and construction,
use, and maintenance of a new haul
road between mine areas on the
southern ends of Peabody’s coal leases;
• Approval of Black Mesa Pipeline’s
existing coal-slurry preparation plant
and rebuilding the 273-mile-long coalslurry pipeline to the Mohave
Generating Station; and
• Approval of a new Coconino
Aquifer water-supply system, including
a 108-mile-long pipeline to convey the
water to the minesite.
Alternative B
• Conditional approval of Peabody’s
life-of-mine permit revision, including
incorporation of the Black Mesa Mine
surface facilities and coal deposits into
the Kayenta Mine permit area and
construction, use, and maintenance of a
haul road between mine areas on the
southern ends of Peabody’s coal leases;
• No approval for coal mining at the
Black Mesa Mine to supply the Mohave
Generating Station;
• No approval to reconstruct the coalslurry pipeline; and
• No approval to construct the
Coconino Aquifer water-supply system.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Alternative C
• Disapproval of Peabody’s life-ofmine permit revision.
Æ No approval for mining coal at the
Black Mesa Mine to supply the Mohave
Generating Station but continued
operation of mining at the Kayenta Mine
to supply coal to the Navajo Generating
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
Station, because Peabody already has an
approved permit for this mine and has
the right of successive permit renewals;
Æ No incorporation of Black Mesa
Mine surface facilities and coal deposits
into the Kayenta Mine permit area;
• No approval to reconstruct the coalslurry pipeline; and
• No approval to construct the
Coconino Aquifer water-supply system.
At the time the draft EIS was released,
the purpose of the proposed project was
to continue to supply coal to MGS and
to the Navajo Generating Station, and
Alternative A in the draft EIS described
the proposed project. In letters dated
February 25 and April 30, 2008,
Peabody notified OSM that it did not
intend to continue to supply coal to
MGS in the future because it believed
the reopening of MGS is remote.
Peabody would continue to supply coal
to the Navajo Generating Station and
stated its intention to amend the
pending permit revision application for
the Black Mesa Mine Complex to
remove proposed plans and activities
that supported supplying coal to MGS.
Specifically, the pending permit
revision application would be amended
to (1) remove the plans for a coal wash
plant and coal waste disposal site, (2)
modify the probable hydrologic
consequences section of the application
to indicate use of 1,236 ac-ft/yr of
Navajo aquifer water for domestic and
mine-related uses instead of the initially
proposed long-term average of about
2,000 ac-ft/yr for mine-related uses and
as a backup water supply to the
proposed new Coconino aquifer water
supply, and (3) remove the plan for a
new road between the southern parts of
its coal leases. By amending the permit
revision application, the proposed
project is reduced to permitting the
Black Mesa Complex mining operations
as described and analyzed as
Alternative B of the draft EIS, except
that the new road that was included in
Alternative B is no longer being
proposed. In the analysis of alternative
B in the draft EIS, OSM had considered
the impacts of the proposed new road
that would have disturbed 127 acres.
With elimination of the plans for a new
proposed road, the impacts would be
less than those identified in the draft
EIS for Alternative B.
More information about the project
and EIS can be found on OSM’s Internet
Web site at https://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/
WR/BlackMesaEIS.htm.
III. Public Comment Procedures
Written Comments: If you submit
written comments, they should be
specific, confined to issues pertinent to
the draft EIS, and explain the reason for
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30161
any recommended changes. Please
indicate the chapter, page, paragraph,
and sentence of the draft EIS your
comments pertain to.
We will make every attempt to log all
comments into the record for this draft
EIS; however, we cannot ensure that
comments received after the close of the
comment period (see DATES) or sent to
a location other than those listed above
(see ADDRESSES) will be included in the
record and considered.
Public Availability of Comments:
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: May 6, 2008.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Western Region.
[FR Doc. E8–11265 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–598]
In the Matter of Certain Unified
Communications Systems, Products
Used With Such Systems, and
Components Thereof; Notice of
Commission Decision to Reverse-inPart and Modify-in-Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of
Section 337 and Termination of the
Investigation With a Finding of No
Violation
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reversein-part and modify-in-part a final initial
determination (‘‘ID’’) of the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’). The
Commission has determined that there
is no violation of section 337 in the
above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation are or will be available for
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
30162
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
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. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at 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. Hearing-impaired
persons are advised that information on
this matter can be obtained by
contacting the Commission’s TDD
terminal on (202) 205–1810.
The
Commission instituted this investigation
on March 26, 2007, based on a
complaint filed by Microsoft
Corporation (‘‘Microsoft’’) of Redmond,
Washington. 72 FR 14138–9. The
complaint, as amended and
supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
importation into the United States, the
sale for importation, and the sale within
the United States after importation of
certain unified communications
systems, products used with such
systems, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims
of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439 (‘‘the ‘439
patent’’); 6,430,289; 6,263,064 (‘‘the ‘064
patent’’); and 6,728,357. The complaint
further alleges the existence of a
domestic industry. The Commission’s
notice of investigation named AlcatelLucent (‘‘ALE’’) of Paris, France as the
only respondent.
On April 20, 2007, Microsoft moved
to amend the complaint to: (1)
Substitute Alcatel Business Systems for
Alcatel-Lucent as respondent in this
investigation, and (2) add allegations of
infringement of claims 8, 28, 38, and 48
of the ‘439 patent, and claim 20 of the
‘064 patent. Respondent and the
Commission investigative attorney
(‘‘IA’’) did not oppose the motion.
On May 17 and September 20, 2007,
respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by
the presiding ALJ, granting Microsoft’s
motions to amend the complaint and to
terminate the investigation in part based
on Microsoft’s withdrawal of certain
claims. On October 23 and October 26,
2007, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by
the presiding ALJ, granting Microsoft’s
motion to terminate the investigation in
part based on Microsoft’s withdrawal of
certain claims and granting ALE’s
motion to amend the complaint.
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
On January 28, 2008, the ALJ issued
his final ID and recommended
determinations on remedy and bonding.
The ALJ found a violation of section 337
based on his findings that the
respondent’s accused products infringe
claims 1 and 28 of the ‘439 patent, and
that those claims were not proven
invalid and that the domestic industry
and importation requirements of section
337 were met as to those claims. On
February 11, 2008, all parties, including
the IA, filed petitions for review of the
final ID. On February 19, 2008, all
parties filed responses to the petitions
for review.
On March 14, 2008, the Commission
determined to review-in-part the final
ID. Particularly, the Commission
determined to review: (1) The ALJ’s
construction of the claim term ‘‘current
activity of subscribers on the computer
network;’’ (2) the ALJ’s determination
that ALE’s OXE system directly and
indirectly infringes the ‘439 patent; (3)
the ALJ’s determination that ALE’s OXO
system does not infringe the ‘439 patent;
(4) the ALJ’s determination that claims
1 and 28 of the ‘439 patent are not
invalid in view of U.S. Patent No.
6,041,114 (‘‘the ‘114 patent’’) or U.S.
Patent No. 5,652,789 (‘‘the ‘789 patent’’);
(5) the ALJ’s determination that claim
38 of the ‘439 patent is invalid in view
of the ‘114 patent; and (6) the ALJ’s
determination that claim 38 is not
invalid in view of the ‘789 patent.
With respect to violation, the
Commission requested written
submissions from the parties relating to
the following issues:
(1) The ALJ’s finding that the ‘‘current
activity of the user on the computer network’’
as found in the ‘439 patent ‘‘can consist of
both user-selected indicators based on user
activity (e.g., ‘conditional processing’ as per
the ‘439 specification) and the transfer of
data between the computer and telephone
networks while the user is engaged in a VoIP
phone call’’ (ID at 47), and the implications
of this finding for the infringement and
invalidity analyses;
(2) What is the exact demarcation between
the ‘439 patent claim terms ‘‘telephone
network’’ and ‘‘computer network’’ as it
relates to claim construction, invalidity using
the ‘114 and ‘789 patents, and the
infringement analysis for a Voice-over-IP
(VoIP) communication system;
(3) Whether the PBX and telecommute
server of the ‘114 patent, functioning
together, can be considered to disclose the
‘‘network access port’’ and ‘‘controller’’
limitations of claim 1 of the ‘439 patent to
anticipate this claim;
(4) To what extent, if any, does
anticipation of claims 1 and 28 of the ‘439
patent depend on a finding that the claim
limitations are inherently disclosed by the
‘114 and ‘789 patents; and
(5) Please comment on Microsoft’s
argument that the ALJ, when construing the
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
term ‘‘current activity’’ to mean ‘‘either the
status of the user or subscriber at the present
time or the most recent status of a user or
subscriber,’’ did so in a manner inconsistent
with Federal Circuit precedent. Complainant
Microsoft’s Contingent Petition for Review at
9. In addressing this argument, please
address Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex
Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(‘‘[u]nder Phillips, the rule that ‘a court will
give a claim term the full range of its
ordinary meaning,’ * * * does not mean that
the term will presumptively receive its
broadest dictionary definition or the
aggregate of multiple dictionary definitions
* * * ’’) and Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis
Pharms, Inc. 468 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (‘‘claim is unpatentable under the
preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof
standard, giving each term its broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the
specification’’).
73 FR 15005–07.
Further, the Commission requested
written submissions on the issues of
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding. Id.
On March 24 and March 31, 2008,
respectively, the complainant Microsoft,
the respondent ALE, and the IA filed
briefs and reply briefs on the issues for
which the Commission requested
written submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this
investigation, including the final ID and
the parties’ written submissions, the
Commission has determined to reversein-part and modify-in-part the ID.
Particularly, the Commission has
modified the ALJ’s claim construction of
the term ‘‘current activity of the user on
the computer network’’ in claims 1, 28,
and 38 of the ‘439 patent to be ‘‘the
current status of the user on the
computer network’’ where ‘‘current
status’’ includes ‘‘either the status of a
user or subscriber at the present time or
the most recent status of a user or
subscriber.’’ Further, the Commission
has reversed the ALJ’s ruling of
infringement of the ‘439 patent by ALE’s
OXE system and determined that this
system does not infringe claims 1, 28,
and 38 under at least the Commission’s
modified claim construction of ‘‘current
activity of the user on the computer
network.’’ The Commission has also
affirmed the ALJ’s ruling of noninfringement of the ‘439 patent by ALE’s
OXO system. In addition, the
Commission has reversed the ALJ’s
finding that claims 1 and 28 are not
invalid in view of the ‘114 patent or the
‘789 patent, reversed the ALJ’s finding
that claim 38 is not invalid in view of
the ‘789 patent, and affirmed the ALJ’s
finding that claim 38 is invalid in view
of the ‘114 patent. Particularly, the
Commission has determined that claims
1, 28, and 38 are invalid in view of the
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 101 / Friday, May 23, 2008 / Notices
‘114 patent, and are also invalid in view
of the ‘789 patent.
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 210.45 and 210.50 of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.50).
Issued: May 19, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8–11578 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–08–014]
Government in the Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice; Change of Time for
Government in the Sunshine Act
Meeting
United
States International Trade Commission.
DATE OF MEETING: May 28, 2008 at 11
a.m.
ORIGINAL TIME OF MEETING: 11 a.m.
NEW TIME OF MEETING: 10:45 a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
ACTION: In accordance with 19 CFR
201.37, public notice is hereby given
that the Commission has determined to
change the time of the Government in
the Sunshine Act Meeting scheduled for
May 28, 2008 from 11 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.
Earlier announcement of this action
was not possible.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
Issued: May 20, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. E8–11657 Filed 5–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
[OMB Number 1122–0016]
Office on Violence Against Women;
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Revision of a Currently
Approved Collection; Comments
Requested
30-Day Notice of Information
Collection Under Review: Semi-Annual
Progress Report for the Grantees from
the Transitional Housing Assistance
Grant Program
ACTION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:34 May 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Department of Justice, Office on
Violence Against Women (OVW) will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The proposed information collection is
published to obtain comments from the
public and affected agencies. This
proposed information collection was
previously published in the Federal
Register Volume 73, Number 53, pages
14487 and 14488 on March 18, 2008,
allowing for a 60-day comment period.
The purpose of this notice is to allow
for an additional 30 days for public
comment until June 23, 2008. This
process is conducted in accordance with
5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions
regarding the items contained in this
notice, especially the estimated public
burden and associated response time,
should be directed to The Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention Department of Justice Desk
Officer, Washington, DC 20503.
Additionally, comments may be
submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202)
395–5806.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
(1) 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;
(2) 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;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) 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,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Overview of This Information
Collection
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Revision of a currently approved
collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: SemiAnnual Progress Report for Grantees of
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30163
the Transitional Housing Assistance
Grant Program.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form Number: 1122–0016.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office on
Violence Against Women.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: The affected public includes
the approximately 120 grantees of the
Transitional Housing Assistance Grant
Program (Transitional Housing Program)
whose eligibility is determined by
statute. This discretionary grant
program provides transitional housing,
short-term housing assistance, and
related support services for individuals
who are homeless, or in need of
transitional housing or other housing
assistance, as a result of fleeing a
situation of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, or stalking, and
for whom emergency shelter services or
other crisis intervention services are
unavailable or insufficient. Eligible
applicants are States, units of local
government, Indian tribal governments,
and other organizations, including
domestic violence and sexual assault
victim services providers, domestic
violence or sexual assault coalitions,
other nonprofit, nongovernmental
organizations, or community-based and
culturally specific organizations, that
have a documented history of effective
work concerning domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, or
stalking.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond/reply: It is estimated that it will
take the 120 respondents (grantees)
approximately one hour to complete the
semi-annual progress report. The semiannual progress report is divided into
sections that pertain to the different
types of activities that grantees may
engage in and the different types of
grantees that receive funds. A
Transitional Housing Program grantee
will only be required to complete the
sections of the form that pertain to its
own specific activities.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total annual hour burden
to complete the data collection forms is
240 hours, that is 120 grantees
completing a form twice a year with an
estimated completion time for the form
being one hour.
If additional information is required
contact: Lynn Bryant, Deputy Clearance
Officer, United States Department of
Justice, Justice Management Division,
Policy and Planning Staff, Suite 1600,
E:\FR\FM\23MYN1.SGM
23MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 101 (Friday, May 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30161-30163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11578]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-598]
In the Matter of Certain Unified Communications Systems, Products
Used With Such Systems, and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission
Decision to Reverse-in-Part and Modify-in-Part a Final Initial
Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337 and Termination of the
Investigation With a Finding of No Violation
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to reverse-in-part and modify-in-part a final
initial determination (``ID'') of the presiding administrative law
judge (``ALJ''). The Commission has determined that there is no
violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-
confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are
or will be available for
[[Page 30162]]
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. General
information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing
its Internet server at 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. Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the
Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
on March 26, 2007, based on a complaint filed by Microsoft Corporation
(``Microsoft'') of Redmond, Washington. 72 FR 14138-9. The complaint,
as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into
the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the
United States after importation of certain unified communications
systems, products used with such systems, and components thereof by
reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,421,439
(``the `439 patent''); 6,430,289; 6,263,064 (``the `064 patent''); and
6,728,357. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic
industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named Alcatel-Lucent
(``ALE'') of Paris, France as the only respondent.
On April 20, 2007, Microsoft moved to amend the complaint to: (1)
Substitute Alcatel Business Systems for Alcatel-Lucent as respondent in
this investigation, and (2) add allegations of infringement of claims
8, 28, 38, and 48 of the `439 patent, and claim 20 of the `064 patent.
Respondent and the Commission investigative attorney (``IA'') did not
oppose the motion.
On May 17 and September 20, 2007, respectively, the Commission
determined not to review IDs, issued by the presiding ALJ, granting
Microsoft's motions to amend the complaint and to terminate the
investigation in part based on Microsoft's withdrawal of certain
claims. On October 23 and October 26, 2007, respectively, the
Commission determined not to review IDs, issued by the presiding ALJ,
granting Microsoft's motion to terminate the investigation in part
based on Microsoft's withdrawal of certain claims and granting ALE's
motion to amend the complaint.
On January 28, 2008, the ALJ issued his final ID and recommended
determinations on remedy and bonding. The ALJ found a violation of
section 337 based on his findings that the respondent's accused
products infringe claims 1 and 28 of the `439 patent, and that those
claims were not proven invalid and that the domestic industry and
importation requirements of section 337 were met as to those claims. On
February 11, 2008, all parties, including the IA, filed petitions for
review of the final ID. On February 19, 2008, all parties filed
responses to the petitions for review.
On March 14, 2008, the Commission determined to review-in-part the
final ID. Particularly, the Commission determined to review: (1) The
ALJ's construction of the claim term ``current activity of subscribers
on the computer network;'' (2) the ALJ's determination that ALE's OXE
system directly and indirectly infringes the `439 patent; (3) the ALJ's
determination that ALE's OXO system does not infringe the `439 patent;
(4) the ALJ's determination that claims 1 and 28 of the `439 patent are
not invalid in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,041,114 (``the `114 patent'')
or U.S. Patent No. 5,652,789 (``the `789 patent''); (5) the ALJ's
determination that claim 38 of the `439 patent is invalid in view of
the `114 patent; and (6) the ALJ's determination that claim 38 is not
invalid in view of the `789 patent.
With respect to violation, the Commission requested written
submissions from the parties relating to the following issues:
(1) The ALJ's finding that the ``current activity of the user on
the computer network'' as found in the `439 patent ``can consist of
both user-selected indicators based on user activity (e.g.,
`conditional processing' as per the `439 specification) and the
transfer of data between the computer and telephone networks while
the user is engaged in a VoIP phone call'' (ID at 47), and the
implications of this finding for the infringement and invalidity
analyses;
(2) What is the exact demarcation between the `439 patent claim
terms ``telephone network'' and ``computer network'' as it relates
to claim construction, invalidity using the `114 and `789 patents,
and the infringement analysis for a Voice-over-IP (VoIP)
communication system;
(3) Whether the PBX and telecommute server of the `114 patent,
functioning together, can be considered to disclose the ``network
access port'' and ``controller'' limitations of claim 1 of the `439
patent to anticipate this claim;
(4) To what extent, if any, does anticipation of claims 1 and 28
of the `439 patent depend on a finding that the claim limitations
are inherently disclosed by the `114 and `789 patents; and
(5) Please comment on Microsoft's argument that the ALJ, when
construing the term ``current activity'' to mean ``either the status
of the user or subscriber at the present time or the most recent
status of a user or subscriber,'' did so in a manner inconsistent
with Federal Circuit precedent. Complainant Microsoft's Contingent
Petition for Review at 9. In addressing this argument, please
address Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (``[u]nder Phillips, the rule that `a court
will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning,' * *
* does not mean that the term will presumptively receive its
broadest dictionary definition or the aggregate of multiple
dictionary definitions * * * '') and Impax Labs, Inc. v. Aventis
Pharms, Inc. 468 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (``claim is
unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof
standard, giving each term its broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification'').
73 FR 15005-07.
Further, the Commission requested written submissions on the issues
of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id.
On March 24 and March 31, 2008, respectively, the complainant
Microsoft, the respondent ALE, and the IA filed briefs and reply briefs
on the issues for which the Commission requested written submissions.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the
final ID and the parties' written submissions, the Commission has
determined to reverse-in-part and modify-in-part the ID. Particularly,
the Commission has modified the ALJ's claim construction of the term
``current activity of the user on the computer network'' in claims 1,
28, and 38 of the `439 patent to be ``the current status of the user on
the computer network'' where ``current status'' includes ``either the
status of a user or subscriber at the present time or the most recent
status of a user or subscriber.'' Further, the Commission has reversed
the ALJ's ruling of infringement of the `439 patent by ALE's OXE system
and determined that this system does not infringe claims 1, 28, and 38
under at least the Commission's modified claim construction of
``current activity of the user on the computer network.'' The
Commission has also affirmed the ALJ's ruling of non-infringement of
the `439 patent by ALE's OXO system. In addition, the Commission has
reversed the ALJ's finding that claims 1 and 28 are not invalid in view
of the `114 patent or the `789 patent, reversed the ALJ's finding that
claim 38 is not invalid in view of the `789 patent, and affirmed the
ALJ's finding that claim 38 is invalid in view of the `114 patent.
Particularly, the Commission has determined that claims 1, 28, and 38
are invalid in view of the
[[Page 30163]]
`114 patent, and are also invalid in view of the `789 patent.
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 210.45 and 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45, 210.50).
Issued: May 19, 2008.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-11578 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
