11748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act, Water Management Plans. 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: The following Water 

Management Plans are available for 

review: 

• Banta-Carbona Irrigation District 

• Fresno Irrigation District 

• Westlands Water District 

To meet the requirements of the 

Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

of 1992 (CVPIA) and the Reclamation 

Reform Act of 1982, the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) developed 

and published the Criteria for 

Evaluating Water Management Plans 

(Criteria). For the purpose of this 

announcement, Water Management 

Plans (Plans) are considered the same as 

Water Conservation Plans. The above 

entities have developed a Plan, which 

Reclamation has evaluated and 

preliminarily determined to meet the 

requirements of these Criteria. 

Reclamation is publishing this notice in 

order to allow the public to review the 

plans and comment on the preliminary 

determinations. Public comment on 

Reclamation’s preliminary (i.e., draft) 

determination is invited at this time. 

DATES: All public comments must be 

received by April 20, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Please mail comments to 

Ms. Laurie Sharp, Bureau of 

Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Sacramento, California, 95825, or 

contact at 916–978–5232 (TDD 978– 

5608), or e-mail at lsharp@mp.usbr.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

be placed on a mailing list for any 

subsequent information, please contact 

Ms. Laurie Sharp at the e-mail address 

or telephone number above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

inviting the public to comment on our 

preliminary (i.e., draft) determination of 

Plan adequacy. Section 3405(e) of the 

CVPIA (Title 34 Public Law 102–575), 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish and administer an office on 

Central Valley Project water 

conservation best management practices 

that shall ‘‘* * * develop criteria for 

evaluating the adequacy of all water 

conservation plans developed by project 

contractors, including those plans 

required by section 210 of the 

Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.’’ Also, 

according to Section 3405(e)(1), these 

criteria must be developed ‘‘* * * with 

the purpose of promoting the highest 

level of water use efficiency reasonably 

achievable by project contractors using 

best available cost-effective technology 

and best management practices.’’ These 

criteria state that all parties 

(Contractors) that contract with 

Reclamation for water supplies 

(municipal and industrial contracts over 

2,000 acre-feet and agricultural 

contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres) 

must prepare Plans that contain the 

following information: 

1. Description of the District. 

2. Inventory of Water Resources. 

3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

for Agricultural Contractors. 

4. BMPs for Urban Contractors. 

5. Plan Implementation. 

6. Exemption Process. 

7. Regional Criteria. 

8. Five-Year Revisions. 

Reclamation will evaluate Plans based 

on these criteria. A copy of these Plans 

will be available for review at 

Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific (MP) 

Regional Office located in Sacramento, 

California, and the local area office. Our 

practice is to make comments, including 

names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public 

review. 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail 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. 

If you wish to review a copy of these 

Plans, please contact Ms. Laurie Sharp 

to find the office nearest you. 

Dated: February 20, 2009. 

Richard J. Woodley, 

Regional Resources Manager, Mid-Pacific 

Region, Bureau of Reclamation. 

[FR Doc. E9–5992 Filed 3–18–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–629] 

In the Matter of Certain Silicon 

Microphone Packages and Products 

Containing the Same; Notice of 

Commission Determination to Review 

a Final Initial Determination in Part and 

Set a Schedule for Filing Written 

Submissions On the Issues Under 

Review and On Remedy, the Public 

Interest, and Bonding; Extension of 

Target Date 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

January 12, 2009, in the abovecaptioned investigation. The 

Commission has also determined to 

extend the target date by 30 days. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3116. 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 January 14, 2008, based on the 

complaint of Knowles Electronics, LLC 

of Itasca, Illinois (‘‘Knowles’’). 73 FR 

2277 (Jan. 14, 2008). The complaint 

alleges 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 silicon 

microphone packages or products 

containing same by reason of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Notices 11749 

infringement of one or more of claims 1 

and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,231 (‘‘the 

‘231 patent’’), and claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 15, 

17, 20, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,242,089 (‘‘the ‘089 patent’’). The 

respondent is MEMS Technology 

Berhad of Malaysia (‘‘MemsTech’’). 

The evidentiary hearing in this 

investigation was held on September 

22–25, 2008. On January 12, 2009, the 

ALJ issued an Initial Determination on 

Violation of Section 337 and 

Recommended Determination on 

Remedy and Bond, finding a violation of 

section 337. All parties to this 

investigation, including the Commission 

investigative attorney, filed timely 

petitions for review of various portions 

of the final ID, as well as timely 

responses to the petitions. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review: 

(1) With respect to the ‘231 patent: 

(a) The ALJ’s determination that 

MemsTech’s accused products infringe 

the ‘231 patent; 

(b) The ALJ’s determination that U.S. 

Patent No. 4,533,795 to Baumhauer, Jr. 

et al. (‘‘Baumhauer’’) does not anticipate 

claims 1 and 2 of the ‘231 patent; 

(c) The ALJ’s determination that 

claims 1 and 2 of the ‘231 patent are not 

rendered obvious in view of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,459,368 to Onishi et al. 

(‘‘Onishi’’); 

(d) The ALJ’s determination that U.S. 

Patent No. 6,522,762 to Mullenborn et 

al. (‘‘Mullenborn’’) taken in combination 

with Baumhauer does not render claim 

1 obvious; 

(e) The ALJ’s determination that the 

master’s thesis by David Patrick Arnold 

entitled ‘‘A MEMS-Based Directional 

Acoustic Array for Aeroacoustic 

Measurements’’ (‘‘Arnold’’) taken in 

combination with Baumhauer does not 

render claims 1 and 2 obvious. 

(2) With respect to the ‘089 patent: 

(a) The ALJ’s construction of the 

limitation ‘‘electrically coupled’’ in the 

asserted claims of the ‘089 patent; 

(b) The ALJ’s construction of the 

limitation ‘‘volume’’ in the asserted 

claims of the ‘089 patent; 

(c) The ALJ’s determination that the 

MemsTech’s accused products infringe 

the ‘089 patent; 

(d) The ALJ’s determination that 

Knowles SiSonic products practice 

claim 1 of the ‘089 patent; 

(e) The ALJ’s determination that 

Mullenborn does not anticipate claims 

1, 2, 9, 15, 17, 20, 28, and 29 of the ‘089 

patent; 

(f) The ALJ’s determination that 

claims 1, 2, 9, 15, 17, 20, 28, and 29 of 

the ‘089 patent are not invalid as 

obvious in view of: (i) Baumhauer alone; 

(ii) Baumhauer in combination with an 

article by Kress et al. entitled 

‘‘Integrated Silicon Pressure Sensor for 

Automotive Applications with 

Electronic Trimming,’’ SAE Document 

950533 (1995) (‘‘Kress’’); (iii) 

Baumhauer in combination with U.S. 

Patent No. 4,277,814 to Giachino et al. 

(‘‘Giachino’’); (iv) Onishi; 

(g) The ALJ’s determination that 

evidence shows that the commercial 

success of the SiSonic products is 

attributable to the ‘089 patent. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the remainder of the final ID. 

The Commission also has determined to 

extend the target date for completion of 

the subject investigation by thirty (30) 

days from Tuesday, April 14, 2009, to 

Thursday, May 14, 2009. 

On review, the Commission requests 

briefing on the above-listed issues based 

on the evidentiary record. The 

Commission is particularly interested in 

responses to the following questions: 

(1) With respect to the ‘231 patent: 

(a) Did the ALJ rely on any exhibits 

that were not admitted into evidence in 

reaching his determination that the 

accused MemsTech products infringe 

the ‘231 patent? Please provide the 

citations in the ALJ’s final ID. Is there 

evidence in the record that sufficiently 

supports the ALJ’s infringement 

determination without taking into 

account exhibits that were not admitted 

into evidence and relied on by the ALJ? 

(b) Provided the ALJ’s finding that 

‘‘[t]he substrate in Baumhauer is not 

exclusive to the transducer, and it 

extends beyond cover,’’ ID at 65, cannot 

be used to support his conclusion that 

‘‘Baumhauer does not disclose a 

‘microelectromechanical system 

package,’ ’’ see id., is there record 

evidence to support the ALJ’s above 

conclusion that is consistent with (i) the 

ALJ’s findings (and the infringement 

analysis that led to such findings) that 

the accused MemsTech’s products are 

microelectromechanical system 

packages and that they literally infringe 

claims 1 and 2 of the ‘231 patent, see ID 

at 178, 183–84; and (ii) the ALJ’s 

construction of claims 1 and 2 (and 

specifically, the preambles of claims 1 

and 2), see ID at 13–16. 

(c) Does the record evidence, 

particularly including RX–363; RX–045; 

RX–046; RX–33, show, clearly and 

convincingly, that it would have been 

obvious to one skilled in the art to 

modify the teachings of Onishi to arrive 

at the inventions claimed in claims 1 

and 2 of the ‘231 patent? Does the 

record evidence show that Onishi 

teaches away from the ‘231 patent? 

(d) Does the record evidence show, 

clearly and convincingly, that it would 

have been obvious to one skilled in the 

art to modify Mullenborn in view of 

Baumhauer to arrive at the invention 

claimed in claim 1 of the ‘231 patent? 

(e) Does the record evidence show, 

clearly and convincingly, that it would 

have been obvious to one skilled in the 

art to modify Arnold in view of 

Baumhauer to arrive at the inventions 

claimed in claims 1 and 2 of the ‘231 

patent? 

(2) With respect to the ‘089 patent: 

(a) (i) What record evidence, 

particularly including the prosecution 

history, supports a finding that the term 

‘‘electrically coupled’’ in claim 1 of the 

‘089 patent does not include an indirect 

electrical connection? 

(ii) In distinguishing Cote during 

prosecution, the inventor made the 

following assertions: ‘‘Cote does not 

teach or suggest that the transducer is 

mounted to a surface. As such, Cote 

cannot teach the further claimed 

electrical connection between the 

transducer and the at least one 

patterned conductive layer formed on 

the surface to which it is attached. In 

fact, Cote fails to teach or suggest the 

formation of a patterned conductive 

layer associated with any part of the 

described electret microphone.’’ (RX– 

255 at 206–207) 

Based on record evidence, how 

should the following sentence quoted 

above be interpreted: ‘‘As such, Cote 

cannot teach the further claimed 

electrical connection between the 

transducer and the at least one 

patterned conductive layer formed on 

the surface to which it is attached’’? 

Does it (I) indicate that there is no 

electrical connection because the 

transducer is not mounted on the 

surface, (II) simply restate that the 

transducer is not mounted to a surface 

as mentioned in the previous sentence, 

or (III) refer to the fact that there is no 

patterned conductive layer as 

mentioned in the subsequent sentence? 

What are the implications of each 

interpretation to the question of whether 

the inventor distinguished his invention 

based on the absence of a direct 

electrical connection in Cote? 

(iii) In answering the previous 

questions, what is the significance of the 

USPTO’s statement that ‘‘the prior art of 

record does not teach or suggest the 

combination of the surface being formed 

with at least one patterned conductive 

layer, the patterned conductive layer 

being electrically coupled to the 

transducer’’? RX–255 at 366. 

(b) Is the ALJ’s construction of the 

term ‘‘volume’’ supported by the 

Federal Circuit precedent, including the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
11750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 52 / Thursday, March 19, 2009 / Notices 

Federal Circuit decision in C.R. Bard, 

Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 

864 (Fed. Cir. 2004)? 

(c) (i) Does the record evidence 

support the ALJ’s finding that 

Mullenborn discloses ‘‘what can 

arguably be described as a package,’’ ID 

at 78? 

(ii) Does the record evidence support 

the ALJ’s finding that Mullenborn does 

not meet the limitation ‘‘chamber being 

defined by the first member and the 

second member,’’ ID at 79? 

(d) Provided the ALJ’s finding that 

‘‘[Baumhauer] does not disclose first or 

second level connections and it fails to 

disclose a package substrate,’’ ID at 132, 

cannot be used to support his 

conclusion that ‘‘Baumhauer fails to 

teach or suggest a package,’’ see id., is 

there record evidence to support the 

ALJ’s above conclusion that is 

consistent with (i) the ALJ’s finding 

(and the infringement analysis that lead 

to such a finding) that the accused 

MemsTech’s products are surface 

mountable packages and that they 

literally infringe claim 1 of the ’089 

patent, see ID at 197–98, and (ii) the 

ALJ’s construction of claim 1 (and 

specifically, the preamble of claim 1), 

see ID at 27–29. 

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 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, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (Dec. 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 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 

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. 

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. 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 recommended 

determination by the ALJ 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 further 

requested to provide the expiration 

dates of the asserted patents at issue in 

this investigation and state the HTSUS 

number under which the accused 

articles are imported. The written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than the 

close of business on March 27, 2009. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on April 3, 

2009. 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 (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 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). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: March 13, 2009. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5934 Filed 3–19–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–09–008] 

Government in the Sunshine Act 

Meeting Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: March 24, 2009 at 11 

a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agenda for future meetings: None. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification list. 

4. Inv. No. 731–TA–1021 (Review) 

(Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From 

China)—briefing and vote. (The 

Commission is currently scheduled to 

transmit its determination and 

Commissioners’ opinions to the 

Secretary of Commerce on or before 

April 1, 2009.) 

5. Outstanding action jackets: None. 

In accordance with Commission 

policy, subject matter listed above, not 

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 

may be carried over to the agenda of the 

following meeting. 

Issued: March 17, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Hearings and Meetings Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. E9–6088 Filed 3–17–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES