Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices 13433 

the Commission if received not later 

than 20 days after the date of service by 

the Commission of the complaint and 

the notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of an exclusion order or a cease 

and desist order or both directed against 

the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 7, 2011. 

James R. Holbein, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5670 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–700] 

In the Matter of Certain Mems Devices 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Decision To Review-inPart a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions 

Regarding Remedy, Bonding, and the 

Public Interest 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding a violation of 

section 337 in the above-captioned 

investigation, and is requesting written 

submissions regarding remedy, bonding, 

and the public interest. 

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) 

708–2310. 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 December 31, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed on December 1, 2009, by 

Analog Devices, Inc. (‘‘Analog Devices’’) 

of Norwood, Massachusetts. 75 FR 449– 

50 (Jan. 5, 2010). The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleged 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 microelectromechanical systems 

(‘‘MEMS’’) devices and products 

containing the same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,220,614 (‘‘the ‘614 patent’’) 

and 7,364,942 (‘‘the ‘942 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complaint named as 

respondents Knowles Electronics LLC of 

Itasca, Illinois and Mouser Electronics, 

Inc. of Mansfield, Texas. 

On December 23, 2010, the ALJ issued 

his final ID finding a violation of section 

337 by respondents with respect to the 

‘942 patent, and which also included 

his recommendation on remedy and 

bonding during the period of 

Presidential review. The ALJ found no 

section 337 violation with respect to the 

‘614 patent due to non-infringement of 

the asserted claims. On January 21, 

2011, the Commission issued notice of 

its determination to extend the deadline 

to March 7, 2001, for determining 

whether to review the final ID. On 

January 18, 2011, Analog Devices, 

respondents, and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions for review of the final ID, and 

each party filed responses to the other 

parties’ petitions on January 26, 2011. 

On February 4, 2011, Analog Devices 

and respondents each filed submissions 

on the public interest. 

Upon considering the parties’ filings, 

the Commission has determined to 

review-in-part the ID. Specifically, the 

Commission has determined to review: 

(1) The ALJ’s construction of the claim 

term ‘‘oven’’ relating to both the ‘614 and 

‘942 patents; (2) the ALJ’s construction 

of the claim term ‘‘sawing’’ relating to 

both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents; (3) the 

ALJ’s determination that the accused 

process does not infringe, either literally 

or under the doctrine of equivalents, 

claims 12, 15, 31–32, 34–35, and 38–39 

of the ‘614 patent or claim 1 of the ‘942 

patent; (4) the ALJ’s finding that U.S. 

Patent No. 5,597,767 (‘‘the ‘767 patent’’) 

does not incorporate by reference U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,331,454 and 5,512,374 

(‘‘the ‘374 patent’’); (5) the ALJ’s finding 

that claims 2–6 and 8 are infringed by 

the accused process; (6) the ALJ’s 

findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of 

the ‘614 patent, and claims 2–6 and 8 of 

the ‘942 patent, are not anticipated, 

under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), by the ‘767 

patent or the ‘374 patent; (7) the ALJ’s 

findings that claims 34–35 and 38–39 of 

the ‘614 patent are not obvious, under 

35 U.S.C. § 103, in view of the ‘767 

patent and the Sakata et al. prior art 

reference; and (8) the ALJ’s finding that 

the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement has been satisfied 

as to both the ‘614 and ‘942 patents. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the ID. 

On review, with respect to violation, 

the parties are requested to submit 

briefing limited to the following issues: 

(1) In arguing that the term ‘‘oven’’ 

should be construed as ‘‘a system that 

includes a heated chamber,’’ is it the 

contention of Complainant and the IA 

that the system includes elements such 

as a reservoir, heaters on the reservoir, 

a delivery line that connects the 

reservoir and the deposition chamber, a 

vacuum line, a nitrogen line, and a 

device (such as a computer) for 

programming the temperature, gas 

pressure, etc., of the oven? See 

Complainant Analog’s Contingent 

Petition at 25 and the IA’s Contingent 

Petition at 6. 

(2) If the term ‘‘oven’’ as it appears in 

claim 1 of the ‘942 was construed 

broadly to encompass the entire system, 

would the claim cover a method in 

which the wafer is inserted into, and the 

anti-stiction compound is heated 

within, any portion of the system, 

including the elements listed in the 

question above, such as a heater, 

delivery line, or a device for 

programming? In your response, please 

address whether the Commission 

should construe the disputed term in 

light of the context supplied by the 

claim, which indicates, for example, 

that the anti-stiction compound is 

heated within said oven. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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