Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25867

Riverside counties, for the purpose of

enhancing its survival.

Permit No. 842199

Applicant: Kieth Greer, San Diego,

California.

The applicant requests a permit to

take (harass by survey) the Quino

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas

editha quino) in conjunction with

presence or absence surveys and

ecological research throughout the

species’ range, for the purpose of

enhancing its survival.

Permit No. 800291

Applicant: Ibis Environmental

Services, Tiburon, California.

The applicant requests an amendment

to her permit to take (harass by survey;

locate and monitor nests) the

southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii extimus) in San

Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern,

and Orange Counties, California and to

take (capture and release) the salt marsh

harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys

raviventris) in Alameda, Contra Costa,

Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa

Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties,

California, in conjunction with surveys

and population monitoring, for the

purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No. 829250

Applicant: Hawaii Wildlife Fund,

Laie, Hawaii.

The applicant requests an amendment

to his permit to take (relocate eggs) of

the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys

imbricata) in conjunction with scientific

research on the island of Maui, for the

purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No. 839483

Applicant: University of Nevada,

Reno, Nevada

The applicant requests a permit to

take (capture, release, collect and

sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta conservatio) and the

vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus

packardi) in conjunction with the

collection of water and soil samples in

Yolo, Solano, Sacramento, Yuba, and

Merced Counties, California, for the

purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No. 842267

Applicant: Steve Foreman, Fairfield,

California

The applicant requests a permit to:

take (capture, mark, and release) the salt

marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys

raviventris) throughout its range in

California; take (capture and release) the

California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris

pacifica) in Marin, Napa, and Sonoma

Counties, California; and take (harass by

survey, capture and release, collect and

sacrifice voucher specimens) the

Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta

conservatio), longhorn fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal

pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus

packardi), the San Diego fairy shrimp

(Brachinecta sandiegonensis), and the

Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus

woottoni) throughout the species range,

in conjunction with surveys and

population studies, for the purpose of

enhancing their survival. Please note:

the applicant is currently authorized to

conduct these activities under Permit

No. 677215.

DATES: Written comments on these

permit applications must be received by

June 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written data or comments

should be submitted to the Chief,

Division of Consultation and

Conservation Planning, Ecological

Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911

N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232–4181; Fax: (503) 231–6243.

Please refer to the respective permit

number for each application when

submitting comments. All comments,

including names and addresses,

received will become part of the official

administrative record and may be made

available to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Documents and other information

submitted with these applications are

available for review, subject to the

requirements of the Privacy Act and

Freedom of Information Act, by any

party who submits a written request for

a copy of such documents within 20

days of the date of publication of this

notice to the address above; telephone:

(503) 231–2063. Please refer to the

respective permit number for each

application when requesting copies of

documents.

Dated: May 4, 1998.

Don Weathers,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon.

[FR Doc. 98–12384 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–395]

Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash

Memory, and Flash Microcontroller

Semiconductor Devices, and Products

Containing Same; Notice of

Commission Decision to Review

Portions of an Initial Determination and

Schedule for the Filing of 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

certain portions of the initial

determination (ID) issued by the

presiding administrative law judge (ALJ)

on March 19, 1998, in the abovecaptioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Wasleff, Esq., Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. International Trade

Commission, telephone 202–205–3094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission instituted this investigation

on March 18, 1997, based on a

complaint filed by Atmel Corporation.

62 FR 13706. The complaint named five

respondents: Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.,

Winbond Electronics Corporation and

Winbond Electronics North America

Corporation (collectively ‘‘Winbond’’),

Macronix International Co., Ltd. and

Macronix America, Inc. (collectively

‘‘Macronix’’). Silicon Storage

Technology, Inc. (‘‘SST’’) was permitted

to intervene.

In its complaint, Atmel alleged that

respondents violated section 337 by

importing into the United States, selling

for importation, and/or selling in the

United States after importation

electronic products and/or components

that infringe one or more of claim 1 of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,511,811, claim 1 of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,673,829, claim 1 of

U.S. Letters Patent 4,974,565 (‘‘the ‘565

patent’’) and claims 1–9 of U.S. Letters

Patent 4,451,903. The ‘565 patent was

subsequently removed from the case.

The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary

hearing from December 8 to December

19, 1997.

On March 19, 1998, the ALJ issued his

final ID finding that there was no

violation of section 337. He found that

neither claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent

4,511,811 (‘‘the ‘811 patent’’), nor claim

1 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,673,829 (‘‘the

‘829 patent’’), nor claim 1 or claim 9 of
25868 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices

U.S. Letters Patent 4,451,903 (‘‘the ‘903

patent’’) was infringed by any product

of the respondents or intervenor. He

further found that the ‘903 patent was

unenforceable because of waiver and

implied license by legal estoppel, and

that claims 2 through 8 of this patent are

invalid for indefiniteness. He found that

respondents and the intervenor had not

demonstrated that any other claim at

issue was invalid in view of any prior

art before him, or that the ‘903 patent is

void for failure to name a co-inventor.

He found that complainant had not

demonstrated that the ‘811 patent was

entitled to an earlier date of invention

than that appearing on the face of the

patent. Finally, the ALJ found that there

was a domestic industry with respect to

all patents at issue.

On March 31, 1998, complainant

Atmel filed a petition for review of the

ALJ’s final ID. On April 1, 1998,

respondent Winbond filed a petition for

review of the ALJ’s ID. The other

respondents and intervenor SST filed

contingent petitions for review, raising

issues to be considered in the event that

the Commission determined to review

certain of the ALJ’s findings.

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the ID, the

petitions for review, and the responses

thereto, the Commission has determined

not to review the issue of the validity of

claims 2–8 of the ‘903 patent. The

Commission has determined to review

the remainder of the ID.

On review, the Commission is

particularly interested in receiving

answers to the following questions:

(1) What effect, if any, does the

decision in Atmel Corp. v. Information

Storage Devices, Inc., No. C 95-1987

FMS, slip op. (N.D. Cal. April 14, 1998),

have on the Commission’s consideration

of the ‘811 and ‘829 patents? In view of

Lannom Mfg. Co., Inc. v. USITC, 799

F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1986), can the

Commission consider the theory of

invalidity relied upon by the court in

Information Storage Devices with

respect to the ‘811 and/or ‘829 patents?

(2) Under the ALJ’s construction of

claim 1 of the ‘811 and ‘829 patents:

(a) What evidence of record bears on

the issue of whether the insertion of a

source follower between the conductive

line that receives increments of charge

in the accused cpl2 circuit and the

relevant long conductive line (word line

or source line) is a substantial change?

(b) What evidence of record bears on

the issue of whether the substitution of

a two stage charge pump for a single

stage charge pump is a substantial

change?

(3) Discuss whether the following is

an appropriate construction of the

disputed terms of claim 1 of the ‘811

and ‘829 patents:

(a) Conductive lines having inherent

distributed capacitance means every

conductive line on a semiconductor

chip positioned over the insulating

layer. In discussing this term, please

comment on the significance of the

following testimony: Hearing Tr. at 1593

(12/13/98)

(b) Means * * * for selecting one or

more of said conductive lines means

that some circuitry must select one or

more conductive lines (as defined in

part (a)), one of which receives the

increments of charge from the charge

pump.

(c) Transfer means responsive to said

selection means and connected to said

voltage node for transferring increments

of charge means any circuitry connected

at some point to the voltage node

receiving the capacitively coupled

voltage pulses, and delivering

increments of charge to the conductive

line to be charged. Further assume that

the transfer means must respond to the

selection means at some point in the

charging operation, and increments of

charge refers simply to a periodic

increase in the charge, without

necessarily returning to zero.

(d) Said transfer means including

switching means * * * for blocking

substantially all of the flow of current

means any circuit device that prevents

current from flowing from the high

voltage supply to unselected lines.

(4) Assuming that the disputed claim

terms are interpreted as set forth in

question 3, would the accused devices

of respondents and intervenor contain

circuit means that perform the identical

specified functions? Each respondent

and intervenor is requested to answer

this part of the question with regard to

its own accused devices.

(5) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as set forth in question 3,

what evidence of record bears on the

question of whether the circuit means

for each element of the ‘811 and ‘829

patents is the equivalent for purposes of

35 U.S.C. 112¶6 of the putative circuit

means employed in the accused

devices? If you conclude that the circuit

means are not 112¶6 equivalents, what

evidence of record bears on the question

of whether the distinguishing

differences are substantial changes?

(6) What evidence of record bears on

the question of whether the Amrany

patent is prior art to the ‘811 and ‘829

patents? More specifically:

(a) What evidence of record

corroborates the inventor’s testimony

that conception of the invention

disclosed in the ‘811 and ‘829 patents

occurred in May or June 1981?

(b) What evidence of record bears on

the issue of when the invention

disclosed in the ‘811 and ‘829 patents

was reduced to practice?

(c) What evidence of record bears on

the issue of due diligence from June

1981 until January 15, 1982?

(7) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as set forth in question 3, are

claim 1 of the ‘811 patent and claim 1

of the ‘829 patent valid in view of the

prior art of record, including the

Amrany reference?

(8) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as set forth in question 3, do

the Atmel AT45 and AT49 parts and the

SEEQ parts practice the ‘811 and ‘829

patents?

(9) In what way would any agreement

between SEEQ and JEDEC redound to

the benefit of intervenor and

respondents? Is there any evidence of

record that intervenor or any of the

respondents are third party

beneficiaries?

(10) Assuming that the interaction of

SEEQ with JEDEC resulted in a standing

offer to every company in the industry

to negotiate a royalty free license to the

technology embodied in the ‘903 patent,

is there any evidence of record that

intervenor or any of the respondents

accepted this offer before the filing of

the complaint in this investigation?

(11) What evidence of record might

establish an implied license by

equitable estoppel with respect to the

intervenor or any of the respondents?

(12) Given the facts of this case, can

Mr. Jordan be the sole inventor of a

patent with claim elements drafted in

means plus function form?

(13) Discuss whether the following is

an appropriate construction of the

disputed terms of claim 1 of the ‘903

patent:

(a) Primary circuit means all circuitry

that would be present on a

semiconductor chip before the addition

of circuitry needed to implement the

invention disclosed in the ‘903 patent.

(b) Product information array

disposed on the semiconductor chip

adjacent said primary circuit means that

the memory devices necessary to

contain the claimed product

information are fabricated on the same

integrated circuit chip as the primary

circuit, as defined in part (a) above, but

not interspersed with the primary

circuit.

(c) Access means for receiving first

and second signals and for selecting

said primary circuit . . . [and] selecting

said product information array means

the circuitry needed to make the logic

decision whether the normal output of

the primary circuit or the information in

the product information array is being
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 / Notices 25869

requested by the user. Further assume

that zero volts or the absence of any

input are included in the universe of

inputs that may be first and second

signals.

(d) Output means for providing

output signals representative of the

information stored means the circuitry

needed to translate internal logic

signal(s) representative of the stored

information into a signal suitable to

drive devices external to the chip,

according to the output drive

specifications of the chip in question.

(14) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as assumed in question 13,

do the accused devices of respondents

and intervenor infringe this claim? Each

respondent and intervenor is requested

to answer this part of the question with

regard to its own accused devices.

(15) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as set forth in question 13,

is claim 1 of the ‘903 patent valid in

view of the prior art of record?

(16) If the disputed claim terms are

interpreted as set forth in question 13,

do the Atmel AT27, AT29, and AT49

parts practice the ‘903 patent?

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 that 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 President has 60 days to

approve or disapprove the

Commission’s action. During this

period, the subject articles would be

entitled to enter the United States under

a bond, in an amount to be 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.

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, the public interest, and

bonding. Such submissions should

address the March 19, 1998

recommended determination of the ALJ.

Complainant and the Commission

investigative attorney are also requested

to submit proposed remedial orders for

the Commission’s consideration. The

written submissions and proposed

remedial orders must be filed no later

than the close of business on May 20,

1998. Reply submissions must be filed

no later than May 28, 1998. No further

submissions will be permitted unless

otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file with the Office of the Secretary

the original and 14 true copies thereof

on or before the deadlines stated above.

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.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and § 210.42–

.45 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–

.45).

Copies of the public version of the ID

and all other 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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205-1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

Issued: May 6, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12587 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337–TA–408]

In the Matter of Certain Recombinantly

Produced Hepatitis B Vaccines and

Products Containing Same; Notice of

Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Institution of investigation

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a

complaint was filed with the U.S.

International Trade Commission on

April 3, 1998, under section 337 of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19

U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Chiron

Corporation, 4560 Horton Street

Emeryville, California 94608. A

supplementary letter and an amended

complaint were filed on April 20, 1998.

A second supplement was filed on April

27, 1998. The complaint, as amended

and supplemented, alleges 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

recombinantly produced Hepatitis B

vaccines, and products containing same,

made by processes that infringe claims

4, 5, 7, and 8 of U.S. Letters Patent Re.

35,749. The complaint further alleges

that there exists an industry in the

United States as required by subsection

(a)(2) of section 337.