Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Notices 39711 

Meeting Location Information 

Please note that the meeting location 

is accessible to wheelchair users. If you 

require additional accommodations, 

please notify us at least 2 weeks in 

advance of the meeting. 

Persons planning to attend the 

meeting must register at http:// 

www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/ 

windpower/ 

wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html, 

by August 26, 2009. Seating is limited 

due to room capacity. We will give 

preference to registrants based on date 

and time of registration. Limited 

standing room will be available if all 

seats are filled. 

Dated: August 4, 2009. 

Rachel London, 

Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Wind 

Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. E9–19009 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–623] 

In the Matter of Certain R–134a Coolant 

(Otherwise Known as 1,1,1,2- 

Tetrafluoroethane); Notice of 

Commission Determination To Reverse 

the Remand Determination of the 

Presiding Administrative Law Judge 

and To Terminate the Investigation In 

Its Entirety With a Finding of No 

Violation 

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 conclusion reached in the Remand 

Determination (‘‘RID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned 

investigation that the only remaining 

asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 

5,559,276 (‘‘the ‘276 patent’’) is not 

obvious. The Commission finds that the 

claim would have been obvious to one 

of ordinary skill in the art and is 

therefore invalid. The Commission 

affirms the RID’s conclusion that the 

asserted claim was not anticipated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

M. Bartkowski, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–5432. 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, 2007, based on a 

complaint filed by INEOS Fluor 

Holdings Ltd., INEOS Fluor Ltd., and 

INEOS Fluor Americas L.L.C. 

(collectively, ‘‘Ineos’’). The 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, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain R–134a coolant 

(otherwise known as 1,1,1,2- 

tetrafluoroethane) by reason of 

infringement of various claims of United 

States Patent No. 5,744,658. 

Complainants subsequently added 

allegations of infringement with regard 

to United States Patent Nos. 5,382,722 

and the ‘276 patent, but only claim 1 of 

the ‘276 patent remains at issue in this 

investigation. The complaint named two 

respondents, Sinochem Modern 

Environmental Protection Chemicals 

(Xi’an) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem Ningbo 

Ltd. Two additional respondents were 

subsequently added: Sinochem 

Environmental Protection Chemicals 

(Taicang) Co., Ltd. and Sinochem 

(U.S.A.) Inc. The four respondents are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Sinochem.’’ 

On December 1, 2008, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding that Sinochem had 

violated section 337. He concluded that 

respondents’ accused process infringed 

claim 1 of the ‘276 patent and that the 

domestic industry requirement had been 

met. He also found that claim 1 was not 

invalid and that it was not 

unenforceable. The Commission 

determined to review the ALJ’s final ID 

with regard to the effective filing date of 

the asserted claim, anticipation, and 

obviousness. By order dated January 30, 

2009, the Commission supplemented 

the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the 

effective filing date, and remanded the 

investigation to the ALJ to conduct 

further proceedings related to 

anticipation and obviousness. To 

accommodate the remand, the 

Commission extended the target date to 

June 1, 2009 and instructed the ALJ to 

issue the RID by April 1, 2009. 

The ALJ issued the RID on April 1, 

2009. The RID concluded that 

Sinochem’s arguments concerning 

anticipation and obviousness were 

waived under the ALJ’s ground rules 

and, alternatively, that the arguments 

were without merit. Sinochem filed a 

petition for review of the RID. The 

Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) and Ineos opposed Sinochem’s 

petition. 

On June 1, 2009, the Commission 

determined to review the RID in its 

entirety and requested briefing on 

certain questions. The Commission 

determined to extend the target date to 

August 3, 2009, to accommodate its 

review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s RID 

and the submissions of the parties, the 

Commission has determined to reverse 

the conclusion of nonobviousness of 

claim 1 of the ‘276 patent in the RID. In 

so finding, the Commission has 

determined to rely on certain party 

admissions and other evidence as to the 

state of the prior art. The Commission 

has determined to take no position on 

the RID’s conclusions relating to 

obviousness arguments based on prior 

art references identified in the 

Commission’s remand instructions, 

including the RID’s conclusions on 

whether arguments as to those 

references have been waived. The 

Commission has also determined not to 

rely on the RID’s conclusions as to 

anticipation and waiver of anticipation 

arguments. The Commission has further 

determined to deny Sinochem’s motion 

to strike portions of Ineos’s response to 

its written submission and for leave to 

file a reply to that submission. The 

Commission has determined also to 

deny Sinochem’s motion to conform 

pleadings to evidence taken. These 

findings terminate the Commission’s 

investigation. 

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 Rule 

210.45 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Part 

210.45). 

Issued: August 3, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–18866 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES