Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 1997 / Notices 65285

1Notice of Investigation, 61 F.R. 66,695–96 (Dec.

18, 1996).

The above-listed plats represent

dependent resurveys, survey and

subdivision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, (1515

S.W. 5th Avenue) P.O. Box 2965,

Portland, Oregon 97208.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,

Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.

[FR Doc. 97–32420 Filed 12–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–392]

In the Matter of Certain Digital Satellite

System (DSS) Receivers and

Components Thereof; Notice of Final

Commission Determination of No

Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has made a final

determination of no violation of section

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, in the above-captioned

investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl

P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone

(202) 205–3107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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

C.F.R. 210.45).

The Commission instituted this

patent-based section 337 investigation

on December 11, 1996, based on a

complaint filed by Personalized Media

Communications (‘‘PMC’’) of New York,

New York.1 PMC’s complaint named

seven respondents: DIRECTV, Inc.,

United States Satellite Broadcasting

Company (‘‘USSB’’); Hughes Network

Systems (‘‘HNS’’); Hitachi Home

Electronics (America) Inc. (‘‘Hitachi’’);

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.

(‘‘Thomson’’); Toshiba America

Consumer Productions, Inc.

(‘‘Toshiba’’); and Matsushita Electric

Corporation of America (‘‘Matsushita’’).

DIRECTV, USSB, HNS, and Hitachi will

be collectively referred to as the

‘‘broadcaster respondents’’ or

‘‘broadcasters,’’ while Thomson,

Toshiba, and Matsushita will be

collectively referred to as the

‘‘manufacturing respondents.’’

At issue are PMC’s allegations that the

broadcaster and manufacturing

respondents violated section 337 by

importing into the United States, selling

for importation, and/or selling within

the United States after importation

certain digital satellite system (‘‘DSS’’)

receivers and components thereof that

infringe claims 6, 7, and/or 44 of U.S.

Letters Patent 5,335,277 (‘‘the ‘277

patent’’), owned by PMC. Other claims

originally asserted by PMC were either

withdrawn (claims 3, 12, and 15) or

were found to be invalid as anticipated

under 35 U.S.C. 102, on respondents’

motion for summary judgment (claim

35).

The presiding administrative law

judge (ALJ) held an evidentiary hearing

from June 30, 1997, to July 12, 1997. On

October 20, 1997, the ALJ issued his

final initial determination (‘‘ID’’), in

which he concluded that there was no

violation of section 337, based on his

findings that: (a) each of claims 6, 7, and

44 is invalid as indefinite under 35

U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2; (b) each of claims 6, 7,

and 44 is invalid as non-enabled under

35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 1; (c) claim 7 is invalid

as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102; and

(d) PMC failed to show that the accused

receivers and components infringed any

of claims 6, 7, or 44, either directly or

through contributory or induced

infringement. The ALJ rejected other

invalidity and unenforceability defenses

raised by respondents and found that

PMC satisfied the domestic industry

requirement.

On October 31, 1997, PMC filed a

petition for review of the ID, arguing

that the ALJ erred in finding that each

of claims 6, 7, and 44 is invalid as

indefinite and non-enabled, and further

erred in finding that the accused

receivers and components do not

infringe any of the claims at issue. The

manufacturing and broadcaster

respondents filed separate contingent

petitions for review, asserting that the

Commission should also review the

ALJ’s findings rejecting certain

invalidity and inequitable conduct

arguments, provided the Commission

grants PMC’s petition for review. The

broadcaster respondents also requested

that the Commission reverse the ALJ’s

refusal to allow the testimony of their

expert witness David Stewart and his

rejection of their offer of proof. The

Commission investigative attorney did

not file a petition for review and, in his

response to the petitions for review,

generally supported the major findings

in the ID.

Having reviewed the record in this

investigation, including the parties’

written submissions, the Commission

determined not to review, and thereby

adopted, the ALJ’s construction of each

of the claims at issue, and his findings

that: (1) Each of claims 6, 7, and 44 is

invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶ 2; (2) the accused receivers and

components do not infringe any of the

three claims at issue, either directly or

through contributory or induced

infringement; and (3) there is

consequently no violation of section

337. The Commission took no position

on the remaining issues addressed in

the ID. Finally, the Commission

affirmed the decision of the ALJ to

refuse to allow the Stewart testimony

and to reject the broadcaster

respondents’ offer of proof.

Copies of all nonconfidential

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, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone (202) 205–2000. Hearing

impaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at (202)

205–1810.

Issued: December 4, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–32333 Filed 12–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[AG Order No. 2131–97]

Guidance on Standards and Methods

for Determining Whether a Substantial

Connection Exists Between Battery or

Extreme Cruelty and Need for Specific

Public Benefits

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of guidance; rescission of

prior order.

SUMMARY: The Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996 (‘‘PRWORA’’), as amended

by the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

provides that certain categories of aliens

who have been subjected to battery or

extreme cruelty in the United States are