Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 224 / Monday, November 22, 2010 / Notices 71147 

Hills, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Fuji 

respondents’’); E. Zoller GmbH & Co. KG 

of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of Ann 

Arbor, Michigan (collectively, ‘‘Zoller 

respondents’’); IDS Imaging 

Development Systems GmbH of 

Germany and IDS Development 

Systems, Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts 

(collectively, ‘‘IDS respondents’’); Delta 

Design, Inc. (‘‘Delta’’) of Poway, 

California; Subtechnique, Inc. 

(‘‘Subtechnique’’) of Alexandria, 

Virginia; Rasco GmbH (‘‘Rasco’’) of 

Germany; MVTec Software GmbH of 

Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge, 

Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘MVTech 

respondents’’); Omron Corporation 

(‘‘Omron’’) of Japan, Resolution 

Technology, Inc. (‘‘Resolution’’) of 

Dublin, Ohio; Visics Corp. (‘‘Visics’’) of 

Wellesley, Massachusetts; Daiichi 

Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and 

Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. of Wood 

Dale, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Daiichi 

respondents’’). 

On November 19, 2009, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decisions not to review IDs terminating 

the investigation as to the Multitest 

respondents and the Yxlon respondents 

based on a consent order and settlement 

agreement. On February 16, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decisions not to review IDs terminating 

the investigation as to Amistar based on 

a consent order and settlement 

agreement, and as to Techno Soft based 

on partial withdrawal of the complaint. 

On April 20, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to the Fuji respondents 

based on a settlement agreement. On 

May 5, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decisions not to review IDs 

terminating the investigation as to the 

Multitest respondents based on a 

consent order and settlement agreement, 

and as to the Zoller respondents, the 

IDS respondents, and Delta based on 

partial withdrawal of the complaint. On 

June 11, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decision not to review an 

ID terminating the investigation as to 

Subtechnique based on a consent order. 

On June 18, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to Rasco based on a 

consent order and settlement agreement 

(notice of rescission and issuance of 

revised order on July 6, 2010). 

The respondents remaining in the 

investigation include: MVTec 

respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics, 

and the Daiichi respondents. 

On April 9, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to the ’112 patent on the 

basis of partial withdrawal of the 

complaint. On April 20, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decision not to review an ID granting 

complainants’ motion for summary 

determination on the economic prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the remaining asserted 

patents, the ’539 and ’262 patents. On 

May 18, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decision not to review an 

ID granting complainants’ motion for 

summary determination that the 

importation element under Section 

337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to the 

MVTech respondents, Omron, and the 

Daiichi respondents. 

On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337 by the remaining respondents. He 

concluded that each accused product 

did not infringe any asserted claim of 

the ’539 or ’262 patents. Also, he found 

that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the 

’262 patent are anticipated under 35 

U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all 

asserted claims of both patents are 

invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101, for 

failure to claim patent-eligible subject 

matter. On August 2, 2010, 

complainants, respondents, and the 

Commission investigative attorney each 

filed a petition for review of the final ID. 

Each party filed responses to the other 

parties’ petitions on August 10, 2010. 

On September 24, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

determination to review only the 

following: (1) Relating to the ’539 

patent, the ALJ’s construction of the 

claim terms ‘‘test,’’ ‘‘match score 

surface,’’ and ‘‘gradient direction,’’ all of 

his infringement findings except for the 

claim steps containing the limitations 

‘‘locating local maxima’’ and ‘‘comparing 

the magnitude of each local maxima,’’ 

and his invalidity and domestic 

industry findings; (2) the ALJ’s finding 

that the ’539 and ’262 patents are 

invalid, pursuant to section 101, for 

failure to claim patent-eligible subject 

matter; and (3) the ALJ’s findings 

concerning anticipation of claims 1, 12, 

13, 28, and 29 of the ’262 patent. 

The Commission requested the parties 

to respond to a certain question 

concerning issue (1) under review. 75 

FR 60478–80 (September 30, 2010). On 

October 8 and 15, 2010, respectively, 

complainants, respondents, and the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

briefs and reply briefs on the issue for 

which the Commission requested 

written submissions. 

Having reviewed the record in this 

investigation, including the final ID and 

the parties’ briefing, the Commission 

has determined to: (1) Modify-in-part 

the final ID and issue an Opinion 

supplementing the ID’s analysis 

concerning its finding that the ’539 and 

’262 patents fail to claim patent-eligible 

subject matter pursuant to section 101; 

(2) set aside the ID’s finding that claims 

1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the ’262 patent 

are invalid as anticipated; and (3) affirm 

all other findings of the ID under 

review. The Commission terminates the 

investigation with a finding of no 

violation of section 337. 

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 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.45. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 16, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29302 Filed 11–19–10; 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. Sec. 552b) 

I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States 

Parole Commission, was present at a 

meeting of said Commission, which 

started at approximately 10:30 a.m., on 

Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at the U.S. 

Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship 

Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, 

Maryland 20615. The purpose of the 

meeting was to decide eleven petitions 

for reconsideration pursuant to 28 CFR 

2.27. 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 General 

Counsel that this meeting may be closed 

by vote 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 and Patricia K. Cushwa, 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: November 10, 2010. 

Isaac Fuiwood, 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29354 Filed 11–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES