Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 57617 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 06–5–140, 

expiration date June 30, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 10 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

Seventh Street, SW., Room 7212, 

Washington, DC 20410–7000; telephone 

202–708–1934 (this is not a toll-free 

number). Persons with speech or 

hearing impairments may access this 

number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service 

at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

21, 2005, HUD published its FY2005 

SuperNOFA for HUD’s Competitive 

Grant Programs. The Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

(HOPWA) Program NOFA competition, 

which was included in the SuperNOFA, 

closed on June 9, 2005. After reviewing 

and rating HOPWA applications 

submitted in response to the 

SuperNOFA, HUD anticipated that 

assistance would remain available for 

additional awards. As a result, on 

August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48970), HUD 

published in the Federal Register a 

NOFA for a second round of HOPWA 

funding. The application deadline for 

the second competition was October 6, 

2005. Because of the widespread effects 

of Hurricane Katrina, HUD is extending 

the application deadline for the 

HOPWA second round competition to 

October 13, 2005. 

Dated: September 27, 2005. 

Pamela H. Patenaude, 

Assistant Secretary, for Community Planning 

and Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–19755 Filed 9–28–05; 3:27 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4210–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Indian Gaming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Class III Gaming 

Compacts taking effect. 

SUMMARY: Notice is given that the 

Tribal-State compact between the 

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town and the State 

of Oklahoma, and the Tribal-State 

compact between the Ponca Tribe of 

Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma 

are considered to have been approved 

and are in effect. 

DATES: Effective October 3, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 

Indian Gaming Management, Office of 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy 

and Economic Development, 

Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219–4066. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

Section 11(d)(7)(D) of the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), 

Public Law 100–497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 

Secretary of the Interior must publish in 

the Federal Register notice of any 

Tribal-State compact that is approved, 

or considered to have been approved for 

the purpose of engaging in Class III 

gaming activities on Indian lands. The 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary-Indian Affairs, Department of 

the Interior, through his delegated 

authority did not approve or disapprove 

these compacts before the date that is 45 

days after the date these compacts were 

submitted. These compacts authorize 

these Indian tribes to engage in certain 

Class III gaming activities, provides for 

certain geographical exclusivity, limits 

the number of gaming machines at 

existing racetracks, and prohibits nontribal operation of certain machines and 

covered games. Therefore, pursuant to 

25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(C), these compacts 

are considered to have been approved, 

but only to the extent they are 

consistent with IGRA. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Michael D. Olsen, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 05–19733 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4N–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–451 and 461 

(Second Review)] 

Gray Portland Cement and Cement 

Clinker From Japan and Mexico 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of five-year reviews 

concerning the antidumping duty orders 

on gray portland cement and cement 

clinker from Japan and Mexico. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted reviews 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty orders on gray 

portland cement and cement clinker 

from Japan and Mexico would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury. Pursuant to section 

751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties 

are requested to respond to this notice 

by submitting the information specified 

below to the Commission; 1 to be 

assured of consideration, the deadline 

for responses is November 22, 2005. 

Comments on the adequacy of responses 

may be filed with the Commission by 

December 16, 2005. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

these reviews and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207). 

DATES: Effective October 3, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter 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 (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these reviews may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On the dates listed 

below, the Department of Commerce 

issued antidumping duty orders on the 

subject imports: 

Order date Product/country Inv. No. FR cite 

8/30/90 ............................................ Gray portland cement & clinker/Mexico ............................................... 731–TA–451 ..... 55 FR 35443. 

5/10/91 ............................................ Gray portland cement & clinker/Japan ................................................. 731–TA–461 ..... 56 FR 21658. 

57618 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 

Following five-year reviews by 

Commerce and the Commission, 

effective November 15, 2000, Commerce 

issued a continuation of the 

antidumping duty orders on imports of 

gray portland cement and cement 

clinker from Japan and Mexico (65 FR 

68979). The Commission is now 

conducting second reviews to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct full reviews or 

expedited reviews. The Commission’s 

determinations in any expedited 

reviews will be based on the facts 

available, which may include 

information provided in response to this 

notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to these reviews: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year reviews, as 

defined by the Department of 

Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Countries in these 

reviews Japan and Mexico. 

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the 

domestically produced product or 

products which are like, or in the 

absence of like, most similar in 

characteristics and uses with, the 

Subject Merchandise. In its original and 

full five-year determinations, the 

Commission defined a single Domestic 

Like Product consisting of gray portland 

cement and cement clinker. 

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. 

producers as a whole of the Domestic 

Like Product, or those producers whose 

collective output of the Domestic Like 

Product constitutes a major proportion 

of the total domestic production of the 

product. In its original determinations, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as producers of gray portland 

cement and cement clinker, including 

‘‘grinding only’’ operations. In both 

original determinations, the 

Commission concluded that 

‘‘appropriate circumstances’’ existed for 

a regional analysis of the industry; 

however, the Commission found 

different regions to be appropriate based 

on the facts of each investigation. In its 

full five-year review determinations, the 

Commission took into account the 

Commission’s prior regional industry 

definitions in its analysis and found 

separate regional industries, which 

corresponded, or were similar, to those 

defined in the original investigations. 

In its original determination 

concerning Mexico, two Commissioners 

found that either the Southern Tier 

Region (the States of Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New 

Mexico, Arizona, and California) or the 

alternative Southern Tier Region 

(excluding northern California and the 

inland counties of the Gulf States) was 

appropriate and that no compelling case 

was made for one rather than the other. 

For purposes of the original 

determination, they used the Southern 

Tier Region because it was the more 

difficult region within which to reach 

an affirmative finding. One 

Commissioner found that the alternative 

Southern Tier Region was appropriate. 

In its five-year review determination 

concerning Mexico, the Commission 

found the regional industry to consist of 

producers in the Southern Tier Region. 

In its original determination concerning 

Japan, the Commission found the 

regional industry to consist of producers 

in Southern California; certain 

Commissioners found the regional 

industry to consist of producers in the 

State of California. In its five-year 

review determination concerning Japan, 

the Commission found the regional 

industry to consist of producers in the 

State of California. For purposes of this 

notice, you should report information 

separately on each of the following 

Domestic Industries: (1) Producers of 

gray portland cement and cement 

clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’

operations, located in the Southern Tier 

Region; (2) producers of gray portland 

cement and cement clinker, including 

‘‘grinding only’’ operations, located in 

Southern California; (3) producers of 

gray portland cement and cement 

clinker, including ‘‘grinding only’’

operations, located in the State of 

California; and (4) producers of gray 

portland cement and cement clinker, 

including ‘‘grinding only’’ operations, 

located in the United States as a whole. 

(5) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the reviews and 

public service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the reviews as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the reviews. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are reminded that they 

are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, 

to seek Commission approval if the 

matter in which they are seeking to 

appear was pending in any manner or 

form during their Commission 

employment. The Commission is 

seeking guidance as to whether a second 

transition five-year review is the ‘‘same 

particular matter’’ as the underlying 

original investigation for purposes of 19 

CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post 

employment statute for Federal 

employees. Former employees may seek 

informal advice from Commission ethics 

officials with respect to this and the 

related issue of whether the employee’s 

participation was ‘‘personal and 

substantial.’’ However, any informal 

consultation will not relieve former 

employees of the obligation to seek 

approval to appear from the 

Commission under its rule 201.15. For 

ethics advice, contact Carol McCue 

Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, 

at 202–205–3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in these reviews available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the reviews, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the reviews. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with these 

reviews must certify that the 

information is accurate and complete to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge. In 

making the certification, the submitter 

will be deemed to consent, unless 

otherwise specified, for the 

Commission, its employees, and 

contract personnel to use the 

information provided in any other 

reviews or investigations of the same or 

comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 57619 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is November 22, 2005. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct expedited 

or full reviews. The deadline for filing 

such comments is December 16, 2005. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of sections 201.8 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules and 

any submissions that contain BPI must 

also conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Also, in 

accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, each 

document filed by a party to the reviews 

must be served on all other parties to 

the reviews (as identified by either the 

public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the reviews you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determinations in the reviews. 

Information To Be Provided in 

Response To this Notice of Institution: 

Please provide the requested 

information separately for each 

Domestic Industry, as defined by the 

Commission in its original and full fiveyear review determinations. If you are a 

domestic producer, union/worker 

group, or trade/business association; 

import/export Subject Merchandise 

from more than one Subject Country; or 

produce Subject Merchandise in more 

than one Subject Country, you may file 

a single response. If you do so, please 

ensure that your response to each 

question includes the information 

requested for each pertinent Subject 

Country. As used below, the term 

‘‘firm’’ includes any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in these reviews by providing 

information requested by the 

Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industries in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industries. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies) that currently export or 

have exported Subject Merchandise to 

the United States or other countries after 

1999. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country(ies), provide 

the following information on your 

firm’s(s’) operations on that product 

during calendar year 2004 (report 

quantity data in short tons and value 

data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/ 

business association, provide the 

information, on an aggregate basis, for 

the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping) of U.S. imports and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. imports of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject 

Country(ies) accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject 

Country(ies), provide the following 

information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2004 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, landed and duty-paid at the 

U.S. port but not including antidumping 

duties). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country(ies) accounted 

for by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

57620 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Notices 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject 

Country(ies) accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country(ies) after 1999, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of production 

facilities used for other products and the 

use, cost, or availability of major inputs 

into production); and factors related to 

the ability to shift supply among 

different national markets (including 

barriers to importation in foreign 

markets or changes in market demand 

abroad). Demand conditions to consider 

include end uses and applications; the 

existence and availability of substitute 

products; and the level of competition 

among the Domestic Like Product 

produced in the United States, Subject 

Merchandise produced in the Subject 

Country(ies), and such merchandise 

from other countries. 

(11) (Optional) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industries; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Issued: September 27, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–19593 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–506] 

Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips 

and Chipsets and Products Containing 

Same, Including DVD Players and PC 

Optical Storage Devices; Notice of 

Final Determination; Issuance of 

Limited Exclusion Order and Cease 

and Desist Orders; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has found a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 337) based on the infringement of 

one asserted claim of one asserted 

patent and has issued a limited 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clara Kuehn, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3012. Copies of the Commission 

orders, the Commission opinion in 

support thereof, 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, 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 (EDISON-LINE) 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 April 14, 2004, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of Zoran Corporation and 

Oak Technology, Inc. both of 

Sunnyvale, CA (collectively 

‘‘complainants’’). 69 FR 19876. The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

and the sale within the United States 

after importation of certain optical disk 

controller chips and chipsets and 

products containing same, including 

DVD players and PC optical storage 

devices, by reason of infringement of 

claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,736 

(the ’736 patent), claims 1–3 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,584,527 (the ’527 patent), 

and claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,546,440 (the ’440 patent). Id. 

The notice of investigation identified 

12 respondents. 69 FR 19876. On June 

7, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 

5) terminating the investigation as to 

two respondents on the basis of a 

consent order and settlement agreement. 

On June 22, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID 

(Order No. 7) granting complainants’

motion to amend the complaint and 

notice of investigation to add nine 

additional respondents. Those IDs were 

not reviewed by the Commission. 

On December 22, 2004, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 33) granting 

complainants’ motion to terminate the 

investigation in part with respect to 

claims 2–6, 8–10, and 11 of the ’736 

patent and claims 2–4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15–

18, 20, 22–34, and 35 of the ’440 patent. 

On January 28, 2005, the ALJ issued an 

ID (Order No. 37) granting 

complainants’ motion to terminate the 

investigation in part with respect to 

claim 12 of the ’736 patent. Neither ID 

was reviewed by the Commission. Thus, 

at the time that Order No. 37 issued, the 

claims remaining for determination on 

the merits were claims 1 and 7 of the 

’736 patent; claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 

19, and 21 of the ’440 patent; and claims 

1, 2, and 3 of the ’527 patent. 

An eight-day evidentiary hearing was 

held on February 7–12, and 14–15, 

2005. 

On May 16, 2005, the ALJ issued his 

final ID, findings of fact and conclusions 

of law, and recommended 

determination on remedy and bonding. 

The ALJ concluded that there was a 

violation of section 337 based on his 

findings that (a) the accused products 

infringe claim 3 of the ’527 patent, (b) 

the ’527 patent is not unenforceable, (c) 

claim 3 of the ’527 patent is not invalid, 

and (d) complainants have satisfied the 

domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the ’527 patent. Although the 

ALJ found that the other asserted claims 

of the ’527 patent (claims 1 and 2) are 

not invalid, he found that the accused 

products do not infringe those claims. 

The ALJ found no violation with respect 

to the other patents in issue. He found 

that the accused products do not 

infringe any asserted claim of the ’440 

or ’736 patents and that complainants 

have not satisfied the domestic industry 

requirement with respect to those 

patents. He also found that the asserted 

claims of the ’440 and ’736 patents are