73128 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

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 section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. 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). 

Issued: November 19, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29911 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–690] 

Certain Printing and Imaging Devices 

and Components Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Determination To Reviewin-Part a Final Determination Finding a 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

the Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review a 

portion of the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

September 23, 2010 finding a violation 

of section 337 and to request briefing on 

the issues under review and on remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel E. Valencia, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–1999. 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 October 26, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by Ricoh Company, Ltd. 

of Tokyo, Japan; Ricoh Americas 

Corporation of West Caldwell, New 

Jersey; and Ricoh Electronics, Inc. of 

Tustin, California (collectively ‘‘Ricoh’’). 

74 FR 55065 (Oct. 26, 2009). The 

complaint alleged, inter alia, violations 

of section 337 in the importation into 

the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain printing and imaging devices 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,209,048 (‘‘the ‘048 patent’’); 6,212,343 

(‘‘the ‘343 patent’’); 6,388,771 (‘‘the ‘771 

patent’’); 5,764,866 (‘‘the ‘866 patent); 

and 5,863,690 (‘‘the ‘690 patent’’). The 

complaint named Oki Data Corporation 

of Tokyo, Japan and Oki Data Americas, 

Inc. of Mount Laurel, New Jersey 

(collectively ‘‘Oki’’) as respondents. 

On September 23, 2010, the ALJ 

issued his final ID finding that Oki 

violated section 337 in the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain printing and imaging devices 

and components thereof by reason of 

infringement of several claims in the 

‘690 patent. The ALJ found that Oki has 

not violated section 337 with respect to 

the ‘048, ‘343, ‘771, and ‘866 patents. 

Along with the ID, the ALJ issued a 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding (‘‘RD’’). Complainant Ricoh, 

respondent Oki, and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions for review of the ID on October 

6, 2010. Ricoh, Oki, and the IA each 

filed responses to the petitions for 

review on October 14, 2010. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. In particular, the Commission has 

determined to review all findings and 

conclusions relating to whether a 

violation of section 337 has occurred 

with respect to the ‘343 and ‘690 

patents. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

The ‘343 Patent 

(1) The Commission has determined 

to review all findings relating to the 

limitation ‘‘a direction orthogonal to a 

longitudinal direction of the developing 

roller,’’ as recited in the asserted claims 

of the ‘343 patent. 

(a) Please state your position on the 

meaning of ‘‘a longitudinal direction of 

the developing roller,’’ as recited in the 

asserted claims. How does your position 

differ from the ALJ’s construction? 

(b) Specifically, does ‘‘a longitudinal 

direction’’ include any line extending 

parallel to the central axis of the roller? 

Or, does this refer to the central axis 

itself? 

(c) Please state your position on the 

meaning of ‘‘a direction orthogonal to a 

longitudinal direction of the developing 

roller.’’ Please take into account that the 

planar blade is bent along its entire 

width, and do not confine your analysis 

to two-dimensional cross-sections. 

(d) Assuming ‘‘a longitudinal 

direction’’ can include any line 

extending parallel to the central axis of 

the roller, can ‘‘a direction orthogonal’’ 

refer to a direction that is not 

perpendicular to the surface of the 

roller, i.e., a tangent extending through 

the surface of the roller? 

(e) Given the planar shape of the 

blade contacts the roller in three 

dimensions along the entire width of the 

blade, and is bent along the entire width 

of the blade, is there any bend that 

would not meet the ‘‘direction 

orthogonal’’ limitation? 

(f) How does your answer to (d) 

comport with the preferred embodiment 

of the ‘343 patent shown in Figures 8A 

and 8B? Is the blade 17 shown in 

Figures 8A and 8B bent in ‘‘a direction 

orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of 

the developing roller?’’ 

(g) How do your answers to (a) 

through (e) affect the ALJ’s findings 

regarding infringement, validity, and 

domestic industry? 

(2) The Commission has determined 

to review the ALJ’s construction of ‘‘a 

lower edge,’’ as recited in the asserted 

claims of the ‘343 patent. The asserted 

claims of the ‘343 patent recite, among 

other things: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 73129 

wherein the blade includes a wide-width 

part * * * and a narrow-width part * * * 

configured * * * to be [sic] bend in a 

direction orthogonal to a longitudinal 

direction of the developing roller * * * and 

the narrow-width part is disposed 

downstream of the contact point of the blade 

and the roller part * * * in the rotation 

direction. 

JX–4 (‘343 patent), col. 25, ll. 16–30 

(emphasis added). 

(a) Please explain whether the 

language emphasized above informs the 

meaning of ‘‘a lower edge.’’ 

(b) Can the claimed ‘‘a lower edge’’ 

refer to an edge of the ‘‘narrow-width 

part,’’ an edge of the ‘‘wide-width part,’’ 

or both? 

(c) If the narrow-width part of the 

blade is bent away from the roller such 

that the edge opposite the boundary 

between the wide-width part and the 

narrow-width part does not contact the 

roller, as shown in Figures 8A, 8B, and 

12, how should ‘‘a lower edge’’ be 

construed? 

(d) Can ‘‘a lower edge thereof contacts 

the roller part of the developing roller’’ 

refer to contact between the roller and 

an area extending from the lower edge 

of the blade to a point on the blade 

slightly above the lower edge? 

(e) How do your answers to (a) 

through (d) affect the ALJ’s findings 

regarding infringement, validity, and 

domestic industry? 

The ‘690 Patent 

(1) The Commission has determined 

to review the ALJ’s determination of the 

level of ordinary skill in the art of the 

‘690 patent. See ID at 99. Please 

comment on what the level of ordinary 

skill in the art is with respect to the ’690 

patent. Please provide specific citations 

to the record and testimony. Although 

the parties are invited to brief their 

respective positions generally on this 

issue, the Commission is specifically 

interested in answers to the following 

questions: 

(a) Would it be appropriate for the 

Commission to modify the ALJ’s 

determination to add the fields of 

applied rheology and/or applied 

material science to the types of 

experience that would satisfy the threeyear minimum requirement in the ALJ’s 

determination? 

(b) Would it be appropriate for the 

Commission to modify or remove the 

ALJ’s determination to remove the 

three-year minimum experience 

requirement altogether? 

(c) Would it be appropriate for the 

Commission to modify the ALJ’s 

familiarity requirement by, for example, 

requiring familiarity with at least one 

(as opposed to all) of the following 

technological areas: heat transfer, fuser 

roller design and technology, toner 

rheology, toner adhesion, release agent 

management, nip geometry, image 

fixing, paper path geometry, contact 

angle and surface roughness 

characteristics and testing of 

xerographic user rollers? 

(d) Would it be appropriate for the 

Commission to modify the ALJ’s 

familiarity requirement to remove any 

technological areas not directly related 

to the interaction between a toner and 

a fuser roller? 

(2) The Commission has determined 

to review the ALJ’s determination that 

the asserted claims of the ‘690 patent are 

not anticipated. 

(a) What are the ‘‘above-mentioned 

surface physical properties’’ mentioned 

in column 6, lines 4–5 of the ‘690 

patent? 

(b) Please comment on whether 

examples 1 and 2 of the ‘690 patent 

inform the patent’s statement in column 

6 that PTFE (polytetrafkuoroethylene) 

and polytetrafluoroethylene/ 

perfluoralkylvinylether (PFA) are 

‘‘[s]pecific examples of materials for the 

fixing member which easily satisfy the 

above-mentioned surface physical 

properties.’’ 

(c) Under what circumstances (if any) 

would a PTFE fuser roller not have an 

adhesion constant ratio of less than 

about 8.0 when measuring receding and 

static contact angles using 2- 

nitropropane and n-heptane, 

respectively, as set forth in the ‘690 

patent? 

(d) To what extent is the adhesion 

constant ratio dependent on the surface 

roughness of the fuser roller and 

composition of the toner? How does the 

subject matter of dependent claims 9–16 

inform your response, if at all? 

(e) Is it appropriate under current 

legal precedent to consider the asserted 

patent’s disclosure in determining what 

would be inherent in the prior art? 

(f) Please comment on whether the 

dependent claims of the ‘690 patent are 

anticipated or obvious, assuming claim 

1 of the ‘690 patent is found to be 

anticipated. 

(g) What materials are the OL 400 

rollers and OL 1200 rollers coated with? 

Has this material changed since the 

critical date of the ‘690 patent? 

(3) Please state your position with 

respect to contributory infringement by 

Oki of the asserted claims of the ‘690 

patent. 

(4) Please provide a summary of 

Ricoh’s annual labor costs associated 

with the C200 domestic product. Please 

isolate costs by year and indicate any 

possible trends. 

(5) Are the C200 MFP’s ‘‘articles 

protected by the [‘690] patent’’ under 

section 337(a)(2)? 

As to the ‘048, ‘771, and ‘866 patents, 

the Commission has determined that 

Oki did not violate section 337. The 

Commission has determined to review 

and take no position on the following 

findings and conclusions in the ID, 

however: 

(1) The finding that the Taylor 

reference (‘‘A Telerobot on the World 

Wide Web’’) (RX–281) does not 

anticipate or render obvious claims 19– 

21 and 23 of the ‘048 patent; 

(2) The finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 

5,657,448 and 5,784,622 do not 

anticipate or render obvious the asserted 

claims of the ‘048 patent; 

(3) The ALJ’s determination not to 

construe the following claim terms in 

the ‘048 patent: ‘‘descriptor,’’ ‘‘resource 

identifier defining a resource and its 

location,’’ ‘‘command,’’ and 

‘‘interconnected, on-line documents’’; 

(4) The construction of 

‘‘communications mechanism’’ in claim 

19 of the ‘048 patent and associated 

findings on the issues of infringement, 

domestic industry, and validity; 

(5) The finding that Japanese 

Published Application No. JP H07– 

306934 does not anticipate or render 

obvious the asserted claims of the ‘771 

patent; and 

(6) The finding that claim 13 of the 

‘771 patent is infringed. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the ALJ’s findings that the claim 

terms ‘‘scan means,’’ ‘‘print means,’’ 

‘‘copy means,’’ and ‘‘test means’’ of the 

‘866 patent, and the claim terms 

‘‘scanning means,’’ ‘‘means for setting an 

operation code,’’ and ‘‘a code unit for 

setting an operation code’’ of the ‘771 

patent do not render the asserted claims 

indefinite. Upon review, the 

Commission has determined that the 

terms at issue are not indefinite under 

the relevant standard set forth in 

Aristocrat Technologies. v. International 

Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 1337 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). The Commission 

adopts the ALJ’s substantive analysis of 

these issues set forth in his Order No. 

29 (May 4, 2010). 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent(s) being 

required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of such articles. 

Accordingly, the Commission is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

73130 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 228 / Monday, November 29, 2010 / Notices 

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). 

If 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. 

If 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 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 and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. 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 

identified in this notice. 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. Such 

submissions should address the ALJ’s 

recommendation on remedy and 

bonding set forth in the RD. 

Complainants and the IA are also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainants are also 

requested to state the date that the ‘690 

and ‘343 patents expire and the HTSUS 

numbers under which the accused 

products are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on Thursday December 9, 

2010. Reply submissions must be filed 

no later than the close of business on 

Friday December 17, 2010. 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 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

Issued: November 22, 2010. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29910 Filed 11–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

and Environmental Settlement under 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, and the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act 

Notice is hereby given that on 

November 23, 2010, a proposed Consent 

Decree and Environmental Settlement 

Agreement (‘‘Settlement Agreement’’) in 

the matter of In re: Tronox Incorporated, 

et al., Case No.09–10156 (ALG) (Jointly 

Administered), was lodged with the 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of New York. 

The parties to the proposed 

Settlement Agreement are Tronox 

Incorporated, and fourteen of its 

affiliates (collectively, ‘‘Tronox’’ or 

‘‘Debtors’’), the United States, the Navajo 

Nation, twenty-two states, and several 

municipalities (collectively, the 

‘‘Governmental Environmental 

Claimants’’). The proposed Settlement 

Agreement creates five environmental 

response trusts and provides for Tronox 

to pay $270 million and certain other 

consideration to the environmental 

response trusts and Governmental 

Environmental Claimants. Additionally, 

Tronox is to assign its rights in a 

pending fraudulent conveyance lawsuit 

against its former parent, Kerr-McGee 

Corporation, and Anadarko Petroleum 

Corporation, which purchased KerrMcGee, to a litigation trust that will pay 

88% of its net recoveries to the 

environmental response trusts and 

Governmental Environmental 

Claimaints. The fraudulent conveyance 

lawsuit alleges that Kerr-McGee and 

Anadarko defrauded Tronox and its 

creditors, including the United States, 

by imposing on Tronox all of KerrMcGee’s environmental liabilities 

without sufficient means to satisfy those 

liabilities. 

The Settlement Agreement resolves 

certain environmental liabilities of the 

Debtors to the Governmental 

Environmental Claimants at more than 

2000 sites and indicates the amount of 

cash and percentage of net recoveries 

from the fraudulent conveyance action 

that will be provided by site. Among the 

sites included in the settlement are: 

The Mobile Pigment Complex, Mobile, 

AL 

The former Petroleum Terminal Site, 

Birmingham, AL 

The Jacksonville AgChem Site, 

Jacksonville, FL 

The former titanium dioxide Plant, 

Savannah, GA 

The Rare Earths Facility, W. Chicago, IL 

The Kress Creek and Residential Areas 

Sites, W. Chicago, IL 

The Lindsay Light Thorium Sites, 

Chicago, IL 

The former wood treating facility, 

Madison, IL 

The Soda Springs Vanadium Plant, Soda 

Springs, ID 

The former wood treating facility, 

Columbus, MS 

The former wood treating facility, 

Hattiesburg, MS 

The Navassa wood treating Site, 

Wilmington, NC 

The Henderson Facility, Henderson, NV 

The former wood treating facility, 

Bossier City, LA 

The Calhoun Gas Plant Site, Calhoun, 

LA 

The Fireworks Site, Hanover, MA 

The former nuclear fuels facility, 

Cimarron, OK 

The Cleveland Refinery Site, Cleveland, 

OK 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES