Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Notices 13661 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–587] 

In the Matter of Certain Connecting 

Devices (‘‘Quick Clamps’’) for Use With 

Modular Compressed Air Conditioning 

Units, Including Filters, Regulators, 

and Lubricators (‘‘FRL’s’’) That Are Part 

of Larger Pneumatic Systems and the 

FRL Units They Connect; Notice of 

Commission Decision To Reverse an 

Initial Determination on Remando the 

Administrative Law Judge; 

Termination of the Investigation With a 

Determination of no Violation of 

Section 337 Because the Asserted 

Claims of the Asserted Patent Are 

Invalid for Obviousness 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the initial determination on remand 

(‘‘RID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) and has terminated 

the investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930 because the asserted claims of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,372,392 (‘‘the ‘392 

patent’’) are invalid for obviousness. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark B. Rees, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3116. Copies of non-confidential 

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. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at http:// 

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 November 13, 2006, based on a 

complaint filed by Norgren, Inc. 

(‘‘Norgren’’) of Littleton, Colorado. 71 FR 

66193 (Nov. 13, 2006). An amended 

complaint was filed on October 25, 

2006. A supplement to the complaint 

was filed on November 1, 2006. The 

amended complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, or the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain devices for modular compressed 

air conditioning units and the FRL units 

they connect by reason of infringement 

of certain claims of the ‘392 patent. The 

amended complaint also alleged that a 

domestic industry exists with regard to 

the ‘392 patent under subsection (a)(2) 

of section 337. The amended complaint 

named SMC Corp. of Japan; SMC 

Corporation of America of Indianapolis, 

Indiana (collectively, ‘‘SMC’’); AIRTAC 

of China; and MFD Pneumatics (‘‘MFD’’) 

of Chicago, Illinois as the respondents 

and requested a limited exclusion order 

and a cease and desist order. On July 13, 

2007, the Commission determined not 

to review an ID terminating the 

investigation with respect to MFD and 

AIRTAC on the basis of a consent order 

stipulation and consent order. 

On February 13, 2008, the ALJ issued 

his final ID finding no violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1337). Specifically, the ALJ 

found that there had been an 

importation of SMC’s accused products 

and that none of the accused products 

infringe the asserted claims of the ‘392 

patent. He also found that the asserted 

claims are not invalid due to 

obviousness. He further found that 

Norgren satisfies the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to the ‘392 

patent. On February 25, 2008, the ALJ 

issued a recommended determination 

on remedy and bonding in the event the 

Commission reversed his finding of no 

violation of section 337. 

On April 18, 2008, the Commission 

determined not to review the ID and 

terminated the investigation based on 

the finding of no violation of section 

337. 73 FR 21157 (Apr. 18, 2008). 

Norgren appealed to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘‘the 

Court’’). 

On May 26, 2009, in an unpublished, 

non-precedential decision, the Court 

reversed in part the Commission’s claim 

construction, reversed the Commission’s 

determination of noninfringement based 

upon the new claim construction, and 

vacated the Commission’s 

determination of nonobviousness. 

Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 

2008–1415 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2009), 

2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10984. The Court 

remanded the investigation with 

instructions for the Commission to 

evaluate obviousness in the first 

instance based upon the Court’s 

construction of the claim term 

‘‘generally rectangular ported flange.’’ 

Following receipt of the Court’s 

September 9, 2009, mandate, the 

Commission ordered the investigation 

remanded to the Chief ALJ for 

designation of a presiding ALJ to 

conduct proceedings in accordance with 

the Court’s judgment. The Chief Judge 

reassigned the investigation to the ALJ 

who presided over the original 

investigation. The ALJ held an 

evidentiary hearing on April 21, 2010, at 

which all parties were represented. The 

parties also fully briefed the merits. 

On August 5, 2010, the ALJ issued the 

RID in which he determined that the 

asserted claims are not invalid as 

obvious. SMC and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) petitioned 

for review of the ID. Norgren filed a 

response in opposition to the petitions. 

On October 7, 2010, the Commission 

determined to review the RID on the 

issue of obviousness. The Commission 

also requested further briefing. 75 FR 

63198 (Oct. 14, 2010). The parties have 

responded to the notice of review, fully 

briefing obviousness as well as the 

issues of remedy, the public interest, 

and bonding. 

Upon its review of the issue of 

obviousness, and based upon the 

administrative record in this 

investigation, including the RID, 

original ID, exhibits, transcripts, and 

party arguments, the Commission has 

determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding 

that the asserted claims of the ‘392 

patent are nonobvious, find no violation 

of section 337 because the claims are 

invalid as obvious, and terminate the 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation. 

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 

section 210.45(c) of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.45(c)). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 8, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5841 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

United States Parole Commission 

Record of Vote of Meeting Closure; 

(Pub. L. 94–409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) 

I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States 

Parole Commission, was present at a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

13662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Notices 

meeting of said Commission, which 

started at approximately 10 a.m., on 

Thursday, February 17, 2011, at the U.S. 

Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship 

Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, 

Maryland 20815. The purpose of the 

meeting was to discuss an original 

jurisdiction case pursuant to 28 CFR 

2.17. Four Commissioners were present, 

constituting a quorum when the vote to 

close the meeting was submitted. 

Public announcement further 

describing the subject matter of the 

meeting and certifications of the General 

Counsel that this meeting may be closed 

by votes of the Commissioners present 

were submitted to the Commissioners 

prior to the conduct of any other 

business. Upon motion duly made, 

seconded, and carried, the following 

Commissioners voted that the meeting 

be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Cranston J. 

Mitchell, Patricia Cushwa and J. Patricia 

Wilson Smoot. 

In witness whereof, I make this official 

record of the vote taken to close this 

meeting and authorize this record to be 

made available to the public. 

Dated: February 18, 2011. 

Isaac Fulwood, 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5590 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,934] 

Pass & Seymour/Legrand a Subsidiary 

of Legrand North America; Including 

On-Site Leased Workers From Select 

Staffing, also Known as Real Time 

Staffing Services, and Aerotek; 

Concord, NC; Amended Certification 

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor 

issued a Certification of Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance on May 27, 2010, applicable 

to workers of Pass & Seymour/Legrand, 

a subsidiary of Legrand North America, 

including on-site leased workers from 

Select Staffing and Aerotek, Concord, 

North Carolina. The workers 

manufacture electrical wiring devices. 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on June 16, 2010 (75 FR 34174). 

At the request of a State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

company reports that Select Staffing, an 

on-site leased firm, is also known as 

Real Time Staffing Services. Select 

Staffing employees separated from 

employment at the Concord, North 

Carolina location of the subject firm had 

their wages reported under a separate 

unemployment insurance (UI) tax 

account for Select Staffing, also known 

as Real Time Staffing Services. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

amending this certification to properly 

reflect this mater. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–73,934 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Pass & Seymour/Legrand, a 

subsidiary of Legrand North America, 

including on-site leased workers from Select 

Staffing, also known as Real Time Staffing 

Services, and Aerotek, Concord, North 

Carolina, who became totally or partially 

separated from employment on or after June 

14, 2010, through May 27, 2012, and all 

workers in the group threatened with total or 

partial separation from employment on the 

date of certification through two years from 

the date of certification, are eligible to apply 

for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 

Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

March 2011. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5656 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–74,466, TA–W–74,466K] 

Hewlett Packard Company, Enterprise 

Business Division, Technical Services 

America, Global Parts Supply Chain 

Group, Including Leased Workers 

From QFlex, North America Logistics, 

and UPS, Headquartered in Palo Alto, 

CA, Teleworkers Across California and 

Workers On-Site in Roseville, CA; and 

Hewlett Packard Company, Enterprise 

Business Division, Technical Services 

America, Global Parts Supply Chain 

Group, Including Leased Workers 

From QFlex, North America Logistics, 

and UPS, All Other Teleworkers Across 

the United States; Amended 

Certification Regarding Eligibility To 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’), 

19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor 

issued a Certification of Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance on September 10, 2010, 

applicable to workers of Hewlett 

Packard Company, Enterprise Business 

Division, Technical Services America, 

Global Parts Supply Chain Group, 

including leased workers from QFlex, 

North America Logistics, and UPS, Palo 

Alto, California. The Department’s 

Notice was published in the Federal 

Register on September 23, 2010 (75 FR 

57982). The Notice was amended on 

November 12, 2010 and February 10, 

2011 to include teleworkers across 

many states. The Department’s Notices 

of amended certification were published 

in the Federal Register November 23, 

2010 (75 FR 71457–71458) and February 

24, 2011 (76 FR 10394–10395). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers are engaged employment 

related to the supply of design services 

and sales compensation operations for 

Hewlett Packard Company. 

New findings show that worker 

separations occurred during the relevant 

time period involving employees of 

Hewlett Packard, Enterprise Business 

Division, Technical Services America, 

Global Parts Supply Chain Group, 

working off-site across the United 

States. These workers meet the criteria 

under Section 222(a) of the Act. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include workers of the 

Palo Alto, California facility of the 

subject firm working off-site across the 

United States. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

the subject firm who were adversely 

affected by Hewlett Packard’s decision 

to shift the supply of like or directly 

competitive services to foreign 

countries. 

The amended notice, applicable to 

TA–W–74,466, is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Hewlett Packard Company, 

Enterprise Business Division, Technical 

Services America, Global Parts Supply Chain 

Group, including leased workers from QFlex, 

North America Logistics, and UPS, Palo Alto, 

California, including teleworkers across 

California and workers on-site in Roseville, 

California (TA–W–74,466); teleworkers 

across Arizona (TA–W–74,466A); teleworkers 

across Florida (TA–W–74,466B); teleworkers 

across Massachusetts and workers on-site in 

Andover, Massachusetts (TA–W–74,466C); 

workers on-site in Minnetonka, Minnesota 

(TA–W–74,466D); teleworkers across New 

Hampshire (TA–W–74,466E); teleworkers 

across New York (TA–W–74,466F); workers 

on-site in Charlotte, North Carolina (TA–W– 

74,466G); teleworkers across Ohio (TA–W– 

74,466H); teleworkers across Texas and 

workers on-site in Houston, Texas (TA–W– 

74,466I); and teleworkers across Maine (TA– 

W–74,466J); and all other teleworkers across 

the United States (TA–W–74,466K), who 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES