13434 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 

(3) If the term ‘‘oven’’ is construed 

broadly, then is the claim invalid based 

on a failure to satisfy the written 

description and enablement 

requirements? For example, does the 

specification disclose that the antistiction compound can be heated within 

a vacuum line or a device for 

programming? 

(4) The ALJ determined that the ‘374 

patent did not disclose the limitation 

‘‘exposing said wafer, substantially at 

room temperature, to the vapor of a 

compound having anti-stiction 

properties’’ of claim 34 of the ’614 

patent, finding that a table found at 

column 5 of the ‘374 does not disclose 

a ‘‘process whereby the anti-stiction 

compound is deposited on a wafer 

‘substantially at room temperature.’ ’’ ID 

at 108–09. Can the required disclosure 

be found in the ‘374 at cols. 4:59–5:62? 

In addressing these issues, the parties 

are requested to make specific reference 

to the evidentiary record and to cite 

relevant authority. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may issue an order that 

results in the exclusion of the subject 

articles from entry into the United 

States. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

If a party seeks exclusion of an article 

from entry into the United States for 

purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

When the Commission contemplates 

some form of remedy, it must consider 

the effects of that remedy upon the 

public interest. The factors the 

Commission will consider include the 

effect that an exclusion order and/or 

cease and desist orders would have on 

(1) The public health and welfare, (2) 

competitive conditions in the U.S. 

economy, (3) U.S. production of articles 

that are like or directly competitive with 

those that are subject to investigation, 

and (4) U.S. consumers. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving written submissions that 

address the aforementioned public 

interest factors in the context of this 

investigation, particularly in the context 

of the ALJ’s recommendations on 

remedy. 

When the Commission orders some 

form of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

See section 337(j), 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) and 

the Presidential Memorandum of July 

21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed if a remedy is ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues under 

review in response to the abovereferenced questions. The submissions 

should be concise and thoroughly 

referenced to the record in this 

investigation. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding, and 

such submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy and bonding. The 

complainant and the Commission 

investigative attorney are also requested 

to submit proposed remedial orders for 

the Commission’s consideration. 

Complainant is also requested to state 

the dates that the patents at issue expire 

and the HTSUS numbers under which 

the accused articles are imported. The 

written submissions and proposed 

remedial orders must be filed no later 

than close of business on March 18, 

2011. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

March 25, 2011. No further submissions 

on these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document 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 19 CFR 210.6. 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 210.42–46 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 

210.42–46. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 7, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5673 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–732] 

In the Matter of Certain Devices Having 

Elastomeric Gel and Components 

Thereof; Notice of a Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Terminating the 

Investigation in Its Entirety 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) 

(Order No. 20) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned investigation 

terminating the investigation in its 

entirety. 

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:// 

www.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 August 4, 2010, based on the 

complaint, as supplemented, of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13435 

Interactive Life Forms, LLC of Austin, 

Texas (‘‘ILF’’). 75 FR 47027 (Aug. 4, 

2010). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), based 

upon the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain devices having 

elastomeric gel and components thereof 

by reason of infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,782,818 and 

5,807,360. The complaint originally 

named 26 respondents, including 

Polydigitech Inc. of Schaumburg, 

Illinois (‘‘Polydigitech’’), and Satistic, 

LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada (‘‘Satistic’’). 

The complaint was later amended, as 

was the notice of investigation, to add 

two respondents and correct the 

identification of two original 

respondents. 75 FR 64742 (Oct. 20, 

2010). Since institution, Satistic has 

been found in default and all remaining 

respondents, save Polydigitech, have 

been terminated from the investigation 

based upon consent order stipulations 

and consent orders or based upon 

settlement. 

On December 29, 2010, ILF filed a 

motion to terminate the investigation in 

its entirety, in which it represented that 

it is not seeking entry of a limited 

exclusion order, a cease and desist 

order, or any other relief despite Satistic 

having been found in default. ILF 

further represented that it had decided 

to withdraw its complaint against 

Polydigitech, the last remaining 

respondent in the investigation, because 

its allegations against Polydigitech were 

based upon that firm’s distribution of 

products manufactured by original 

respondent TENGA Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, 

Japan, which has since entered into a 

consent order and been terminated from 

the investigation. ILF also stated that 

neither Polydigitech nor the 

Commission investigative attorney 

opposed the motion. 

On January 28, 2011, the ALJ issued 

the subject ID. Given ILF’s decision not 

to seek any relief against the defaulted 

party, and finding no extraordinary 

circumstances that would preclude the 

Commission from terminating the 

investigation in its entirety based on the 

withdrawal of the complaint as to 

Polydigitech, the only remaining 

respondent in the investigation, the ALJ 

granted ILF’s unopposed motion. No 

petitions for review of the ID were filed. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the subject ID. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and Commission Rules 210.21, 210.42 

(19 CFR 210.21, 210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 17, 2011. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5680 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1103–0094] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Extension of a Previously 

Approved Collection; Comments 

Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Department 

Annual Progress Report. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) 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 revision of 

a currently approved information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. 

The purpose of this notice is to allow 

for 60 days for public comment until 

May 10, 2011. This process is conducted 

in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Ashley Hoornstra, 

Department of Justice Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 

145 N Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20530. 

Written comments concerning this 

information collection should be sent to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer. The best 

way to ensure your comments are 

received is to e-mail them to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax 

them to 202–395–7285. All comments 

should reference the 8 digit OMB 

number for the collection or the title of 

the collection. If you have questions 

concerning the collection, please call 

Ashley Hoornstra at 202–616–1314 or 

the DOJ Desk Officer at 202–395–3176. 

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: 

—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, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

(1) Type of Information Collection: 

Extension of a previously approved 

collection; comments requested. 

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 

Department Annual Progress Report. 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

None. U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: Law enforcement and 

public safety agencies that are recipients 

of COPS hiring grants. 

(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 

approximately 100 respondents can 

complete the report in an average of 1 

hour. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: 100 total burden hours. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Lynn Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, 145 N Street, NE., Suite 

2E–502, Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: March 8, 2011. 

Lynn Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5678 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES