20844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Notices 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

J. Paul Loether, 

Chief, National Register of Historic Places/ 

National Historic Landmarks Program. 

ARIZONA 

Maricopa County 

Alston, Dr. Lucius Charles, House, 453 N. 

Pima St., Mesa, 12000240 

Pima County 

Jefferson Park Historic District, Roughly 

bounded by Euclid, Grant, Campbell, & 

alley S. of Lester, Tucson, 12000241 

COLORADO 

Adams County 

Fuller, Granville, House, 2027 Galena St., 

Aurora, 12000242 

ILLINOIS 

Cook County 

Cermak Road Bridge Historic District, W. 

Cermak Rd. & S. Branch of Chicago R., 

Chicago, 12000243 

IOWA 

Marion County 

Knoxville Veterans Administration Hospital 

Historic District (United States Second 

Generation Veterans Hospitals), 1515 W. 

Pleasant St., Knoxville, 12000246 

KANSAS 

Greenwood County 

Jones, Paul, Building (Roadside Kansas MPS), 

319 W. River St., Eureka, 12000247 

Westside Service Station and Riverside Motel 

(Roadside Kansas MPS), 325 W. River St., 

Eureka, 12000248 

Lyon County 

Emporia Downtown Historic District, 

Generally bounded by 10th & 3rd Aves., 

Mechanic & Merchant Sts., Emporia, 

12000249 

MISSOURI 

McDonald County 

Old McDonald County Courthouse, 400 N. 

Main St., Pineville, 12000251 

N. MARIANA ISLANDS 

Rota Municipality 

Chudang Palii Japanese World War II 

Defensive Complex, Sabena Rd., Sinapalu, 

12000250 

NEW YORK 

Saratoga County 

Mohawk Valley Grange Hall, 274 Sugar Hill 

Rd., Grooms Corners, 12000245 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Catawba County 

Newton Downtown Historic District, Roughly 

bounded by 2nd & A Sts., N. Forney, & N. 

Ashe Aves., Newton, 12000253 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Billings County 

Roosevelt’s, Theodore, Elkhorn Ranch and 

Greater Elkhorn Ranchlands, Address 

Restricted, Medora, 12000252 

[FR Doc. 2012–8250 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–51–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–756] 

Certain Reduced Ignition Proclivity 

Cigarette Paper Wrappers and 

Products Containing Same 

Determination to Partially Review the 

Final Initial Determination 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to partially 

review the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the abovecaptioned investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 

337’’). The ALJ found no violation of 

section 337. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James A. Worth, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3065. 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 (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 January 27, 2011, based on a 

complaint filed by Schweitzer-Mauduit 

International, Inc. (‘‘Schweitzer’’) of 

Alpharetta, Georgia. 76 FR 4935 

(January 27, 2011). The complaint 

alleges violations of Section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, in the sale for importation, 

importation, or sale after importation of 

certain reduced ignition proclivity 

cigarette paper wrappers and products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,878,753 (‘‘the ‘753 

patent’’) and 6,725,867 (‘‘the ‘867 

patent’’). The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named Astra Tobacco 

Corporation of Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina; delfortgroup AG of Traun, 

Austria; LIPtec GmbH of Neidenfels, 

Germany; and Julius Glatz GmbH of 

Neidenfels, Germany as respondents. 

On April 15, 2011, the Commission 

issued notice of its determination not to 

review an ID (Order No. 5) granting 

Schweitzer’s motion to amend the 

complaint and notice of investigation to 

add seven more respondents: Dr. Franz 

Feurstein GmbH of Traun, Austria; 

Papierfabrik Wattens GmbH & Co. KG of 

Wattens, Austria; Dosal Tobacco Corp. 

of Miami, Florida; Farmer’s Tobacco Co. 

of Cynthia, Kentucky; KneX Worldwide, 

LLC of Charlotte, North Carolina; S&M 

Brands, Inc. of Keysville, Virginia; 

Tantus Tobacco LLC of Russell Springs, 

Kentucky. 

On December 1, 2011, the 

Commission determined not to review 

an ID (Order No. 30) of the 

administrative law judge terminating 

Respondents delfortgroup AG, Dr. Franz 

Feurstein GmbH, Papierfabrik Wattens 

GmbH & Co. KG, Astra Tobacco Corp., 

Dosal Tobacco Corp., Farmer’s Tobacco 

Co., S&M Brands, Inc., and Tantus 

Tobacco LLC (collectively, the ‘‘Delfort 

Respondents’’) from the investigation. 

Respondents Julius Glatz GmbH, LIPtec 

GmbH, and KneX Worldwide LLC 

(collectively, ‘‘Glatz’’) remain in the 

investigation. 

An evidentiary hearing was held from 

October 31, 2011, to November 8, 2011. 

On February 1, 2012, the presiding 

administrative law judge issued a final 

initial determination finding no 

violation of section 337 in the aboveidentified investigation. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that there was no 

violation with respect to either the ‘753 

patent or the ‘867 patent by Glatz. The 

ALJ also issued a recommended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Notices 20845 

determination on remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding. 

Schweitzer filed a petition for review 

of the final ID. Glatz filed a contingent 

petition for review. Each of the parties 

filed a response to the petitions for 

review. 

Having examined the final ID, the 

petitions for review, the responses 

thereto, and the relevant portions of the 

record in this investigation, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the final ID as follows. With respect to 

the ‘753 patent, the Commission has 

determined to review the construction 

of the term ‘‘gradually’’ in the asserted 

claims and the issues of direct and 

indirect infringement, obviousness, 

definiteness, utility, and the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement in the ID. With respect to 

the ‘867 patent, the Commission has 

determined to review the construction 

of the term ‘‘film forming composition’’ 

in the asserted claims and the issues of 

direct and indirect infringement, 

priority date, statutory bar under 35 

U.S.C. 102(b), anticipation, obviousness, 

written description, enablement, and 

the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement in the ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on only the following 

questions, with reference to the 

applicable law and the evidentiary 

record: 

(1) In the asserted claims of the ‘753 

patent, the ALJ defined the term 

‘‘gradually’’ to mean ‘‘incrementally.’’ 

(a) Does the term ‘‘incrementally’’ 

carry a connotation of a change that 

occurs in discrete increments, such as in 

a staircase, that is unnecessarily 

limiting? In your answer, please address 

the reference to a ‘‘ramp-like profile’’ in 

dependent claim 3 and assume that the 

Commission concurs with the ALJ’s 

determination that ‘‘ramp-like profile’’ 

refers to the physical shape of the 

claimed bands. 

(b) Assuming that the term 

‘‘incrementally’’ is unnecessarily 

limiting, would the term ‘‘gradually’’ be 

construed to mean an increase or 

decrease in permeability that occurs in 

small steps or degrees and that is not 

abrupt or sudden? 

(c) How would a person of ordinary 

skill in the art distinguish between an 

increase or decrease that is in small 

steps or degrees from one that is abrupt 

or sudden? If such a person would be 

unable to make such a distinction, are 

the asserted claims indefinite as 

insufficient ‘‘to permit a potential 

competitor to determine whether or not 

he is infringing’’? Exxon Research and 

Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 

1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). What slopes 

would be considered gradual? For 

example, is a slope of 89 degrees 

considered gradual rather than abrupt? 

Please respond with citations to the 

record. 

(d) Address how, if at all, adoption of 

the claim construction indicated in (b) 

above would affect the ALJ’s analysis of 

infringement, validity, and the domestic 

industry. 

(2) As to the ‘753 patent, what is the 

significance of points that fall entirely 

within the treated area? 

(3) Is the iodine test an independent 

basis for establishing infringement of 

the asserted claims of the ‘753 patent 

and for satisfying the technical prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the ‘753 patent? 

(4) The Commission has determined 

not to review the ALJ’s construction of 

the term ‘‘film forming composition’’ as 

it appears in the asserted claims of the 

‘753 patent. Is the Commission bound 

by the parties’ stipulation that the term 

should be construed in the same way in 

the ‘867 patent? See Exxon Chemical 

Patents v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 

1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (‘‘In the exercise 

of that duty, the trial judge has an 

independent obligation to determine the 

meaning of the claims, notwithstanding 

the views asserted by the adversary 

parties.’’). 

(5) Assume for purposes of argument 

that the Commission is not bound by the 

stipulation, and note that the 

specification of the ‘753 patent but not 

the ‘867 patent contains the sentence 

‘‘Fibrous slurries applied from an 

aqueous solution are also effective.’’ 

‘753 patent at col. 4, ll.59–60. Does that 

distinction warrant a different outcome 

in construing ‘‘film forming 

composition’’ in the ‘867 patent? 

(6) If ‘‘applying’’ in claim 36 of the 

‘867 patent is construed to refer to both 

single applications and multiple 

applications, is claim 36 invalid for 

failure to satisfy the written description 

or enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 

112? 

(7) Did Schweitzer request samples of 

all accused products? On provision of 

the samples, were representations made 

by Glatz as to the representativeness of 

the samples provided? Did Schweitzer 

make further attempts to obtain samples 

of the other accused products? Please 

respond with a discussion of any 

relevant interrogatories, requests for 

production, motions practice (including 

motions to compel), and any pretrial 

conferences (excluding any settlement 

or mediation conferences). 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may issue (1) an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) cease and 

desist orders that could result in 

respondents being required to cease and 

desist from engaging in unfair acts in 

the importation and sale of such 

articles. 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 are likely to do so. For 

background information, see the 

Commission Opinion, In the Matter of 

Certain Devices for Connecting 

Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. 

No. 337–TA–360. 

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 under 

review. The submissions should be 

concise and thoroughly referenced to 

the record in this investigation, 

including references to exhibits and 

testimony. Additionally, the parties to 

the investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

persons are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

20846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Notices 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the ALJ’s 

recommended determination on remedy 

and bonding. Complainant and the 

Commission investigative attorney are 

also requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. Complainant is requested 

to supply the expiration dates of the 

patents at issue and the HTSUS 

numbers under which the accused 

products are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than the 

close of business on April 16, 2012. 

Written submissions should be no 

longer than 60 pages. Reply submissions 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on April 23, 2012, and should 

be no longer than 30 pages. No further 

submissions will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must do so in accordance with 

Commission rule 210.4(f), 19 CFR 

210.4(f), which requires electronic 

filing. The original document and eight 

true copies thereof must also be filed on 

or before the deadlines stated above 

with the Office of the Secretary. Any 

person desiring to submit a document 

(or portion thereof) 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 201.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment is 

granted by the Commission will be 

treated accordingly. All nonconfidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary and on EDIS. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and under sections 210.42–210.46, 

210.50(a) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42– 

210.46, 210.50(a)). 

Dated: Issued: April 2, 2012. 

By order of the Commission. 

James R. Holbein, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8265 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–835] 

Certain Food Containers, Cups, Plates, 

Cutlery, and Related Items and 

Packaging Thereof Institution of 

Investigation Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1337 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a 

complaint was filed with the U.S. 

International Trade Commission on 

March 6, 2012, under section 337 of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Fabri-Kal 

Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan. A 

supplement to the complaint was filed 

on March 20, 2012. The complaint, as 

supplemented, alleges violations of 

section 337 based upon the importation 

into the United States, the sale for 

importation, and the sale within the 

United States after importation of 

certain food containers, cups, plates, 

cutlery, and related items and packaging 

thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. 

Trademark Registration No. 3,021,945 

(‘‘the ‘945 trademark’’). The complaint 

further alleges that an industry in the 

United States exists as required by 

subsection (a)(2) of section 337. 

The complainant requests that the 

Commission institute an investigation 

and, after the investigation, issue an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. 

ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for 

any confidential information contained 

therein, is 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., Room 

112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 

(202) 205–2000. Hearing impaired 

individuals are advised that information 

on this matter can be obtained by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal on (202) 205–1810. Persons 

with mobility impairments who will 

need special assistance in gaining access 

to the Commission should contact the 

Office of the Secretary at (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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

telephone (202) 205–2560. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2011). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the complaint, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission, on 

April 2, 2012, ordered that— 

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain food containers, 

cups, plates, cutlery, and related items 

and packaging thereof that infringe the 

‘945 trademark, and whether an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337; 

(2) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is: Fabri-Kal 

Corporation, 600 Plastics Place, 

Kalamazoo, MI 49001. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Green Wave International Inc., 112 12th 

Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215. 

Trans World International (New York), 

Inc., 112 12th Street, Brooklyn, NY 

11215. 

John Calarese & Co., Inc., 89 Main 

Street, Suite 204, Medway, MA 02053. 

Eco Greenwaves Corporation, 40 

Montclaire Drive, Fremont, CA 94539. 

(c) The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

shall designate the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d)–(e) and 210.13(a), 

such responses will be considered by 

the Commission if received not later 

than 20 days after the date of service by 

the Commission of the complaint and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES