Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 30, 2005 / Notices 71861 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–406, 

Enforcement I (Remand)] 

In the Matter of Certain Lens-Fitted 

Film Packages; Notice of Commission 

Decision To Terminate a Remand 

Proceeding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to 

terminate the above-captioned 

proceeding. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean 

Jackson, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3104. 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 enforcement 

proceeding on July 31, 2001, based on 

a complaint filed by Fuji Photo Film 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuji’’). Fuji sought to enforce 

a general exclusion order issued as a 

result of an investigation conducted by 

the Commission in 1999, Inv. No. 337–

TA–406, Certain Lens-Fitted Film 

Packages. The investigation involved 

newly made and refurbished lens-fitted 

film packages and involved numerous 

Fuji patents, including U.S. Patent No. 

4,884,087 (‘‘the ‘087 patent’’). The 

initial investigation also involved 

numerous respondents, twenty-six of 

whom were found to violate section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930. Respondent 

VastFame Camera, Ltd. (‘‘VastFame’’) 

was not a party to the initial 

investigation, and its VN99 and VN991 

cameras were not at issue in that 

investigation. 

During the enforcement proceedings, 

VastFame pled as a defense that claim 

15 of the ‘087 patent was invalid under 

35 U.S.C. 102 and 103(a). The presiding 

administrative law judge refused to 

consider invalidity, ruling that no 

defense could be raised in the 

enforcement proceeding. The 

Commission adopted this ruling. 

VastFame appealed this ruling to the 

Federal Circuit, which reversed and 

remanded the case for further 

proceedings. See VastFame Camera, 

Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 386 F.3d 

1108 (Fed. Cir. 2004). VastFame did not 

challenge the ALJ’s determination that 

the VN99 and VN991 cameras infringe 

claim 15 of the ‘087 patent. 

On June 23, 2005, the ALJ precluded 

VastFame from raising new invalidity 

defenses under 35 U.S.C. 112, and, on 

June 25–26, 2005, the ALJ conducted an 

evidentiary hearing on the remaining 

invalidity issues. The ALJ held that the 

asserted prior art references, Japanese 

Unexamined Utility Model Publication 

Nos. 53–127934 and 48–46622, do not 

anticipate claim 15 of the ‘087 patent 

and that they do not render the claimed 

invention obvious in combination with 

Dutch Patent No. 6,708,486. 

On September 23, 2005, VastFame 

filed a petition for review, arguing that 

the ALJ improperly concluded that 

claim 15 is not invalid. On September 

30, 2005, the Commission’s 

investigative attorney filed a response to 

VastFame’s petition, and on October 3, 

2005, Fuji also filed a response. Both 

asserted that VastFame had not shown 

any clear error of fact, error of law, or 

abuse of discretion in the ALJ’s final 

initial determination (ID) that would 

merit Commission review. 

On October 27, 2005, after examining 

the record of this investigation, 

including the ALJ’s final ID, the 

petitions for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission determined to 

review in part the ALJ’s ID. Specifically, 

the Commission determined to review 

the portion of the ALJ’s claim 

interpretation that relies on law of the 

case. On review, the Commission 

determined to take no position with 

respect to that analysis, but affirmed the 

ALJ’s claim construction based on his 

independent finding that the preamble 

to claim 15 is a claim limitation. 

The Commission requested that the 

parties provide written submissions 

indicating whether there are any further 

proceedings required by the 

Commission to complete this remand. 

All parties responded that no further 

proceedings were required. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

terminated the remand proceedings. 

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). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 23, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–23493 Filed 11–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Petitions for Modification 

The following parties have filed 

petitions to modify the application of 

existing safety standards under section 

101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977. 

1. Bridger Coal Company 

[Docket No. M–2005–073–C] 

Bridger Coal Company, P.O. Box 68, 

Point of Rocks, Wyoming 82942 has 

filed a petition to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1101–8 (Water 

sprinkler systems; arrangement of 

sprinklers) to its Bridger Underground 

Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 48–01646) located 

in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The 

petitioner requests to modify the 

application of 30 CFR 75.1101–8 (Water 

sprinkler systems arrangement of 

sprinklers) if the belt controller and 

take-up control units comply with 

existing safety standards 30 CFR 75.340 

and 75.1107–1(a)(3). The petitioner 

states that the units presently are 

electric and are located in transformer 

rooms which comply with the safety 

standards 75.340 and 75.1107–1(a)(3). 

The petitioner asserts that the proposed 

alternative method would provide at 

least the same measure of protection as 

the existing standard. 

2. Brooks Run Mining Company, LLC 

[Docket No. M–2005–074–C] 

Brooks Run Mining Company, LLC, 

25 Little Birch Road, Sutton, West 

Virginia 25601 has filed a petition to 

modify the application of 30 CFR 

75.1002 (Installation of electric 

equipment and conductors; 

permissibility) to its Saylor Mine 

(MSHA I.D. No. 46–09126) located in 

Braxton County, West Virginia. The 

petitioner requests a modification of the 

existing standard to permit a production 

stream to be maintained from the 2,400- 

volt continuous miners at the Saylor 

Mine. The petitioner has listed in this 

petition specific terms and conditions 

that will be followed when the proposed