60478 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNMA01000.L14300000.FR0000; NMNM 

109078] 

Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of 

Public Lands in Santa Fe County, NM 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Realty Action. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has determined that 

2.96 acres located in Santa Fe County, 

New Mexico, is suitable for direct sale 

to Edward Black pursuant to the Act of 

December 22, 1928, as amended, and an 

Interior Board of Land Appeals 

Settlement Agreement for the amount of 

$10,000. The sale is to resolve a class 1 

Color-of-Title claim and will not be 

offered for sale until 60 days after the 

publication of this Notice. This parcel is 

identified for disposal in the BLM Taos 

Resource Management Plan, dated 

October 1988, as amended. 

DATES: Interested parties may submit 

written comments to the BLM at the 

address stated below. To ensure 

consideration in the environmental 

analysis of the proposed sale, comments 

must be received by the BLM no later 

than November 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments 

regarding the proposed sale should be 

addressed to the BLM Field Manager, 

Rio Puerco Field Office, 435 Montan ̃ o 

Road, NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 

87107. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arlene Salazar, Realty Specialist, at the 

address above or by telephone at (505) 

761–8772. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

New Mexico Principal Meridian 

T. 12 N., R. 7 E., 

Fractional sec. 29, lot 10. 

The area described contains 2.96 acres, 

more or less, in Santa Fe County. 

Conveying title to the affected public 

land is consistent with BLM land-use 

planning. The land is not needed for 

other Federal purposes. 

The patent, if and when issued, 

would be subject to the following terms, 

conditions, and reservations: 

1. All minerals, including coal, will 

be reserved to the United States with the 

right to prospect for, mine, and remove 

the minerals; 

2. A right-of-way for ditches and 

canals constructed by the authority of 

the United States, Act of August 30, 

1890 (43 U.S.C. 945); 

3. All mineral deposits in the land so 

patented, and to it, or persons 

authorized by it, the right to prospect 

for, mine and remove such deposits 

from the same under applicable law. 

4. All geothermal steam and 

associated geothermal resources as to 

the land so patented, and to it, or 

persons authorized by it, the right to 

prospect for, mine and remove such 

resources, upon compliance with the 

conditions and subject to the provisions 

and limitations of the Act of December 

24, 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1002); 

5. Subject to those rights for a road 

easement granted to the United States of 

America for the full use as a road by the 

United States of America and its 

assigns, licenses, and permittees 

including the right of access and use for 

and by the people of the United States 

of America generally to lands owned, 

administered, or controlled by the 

United States of America, by right-ofway to the BLM, No. NMNM–121904, 

pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 

(43 U.S.C. 1761), as defined in the BLM 

Plat entitled ‘‘Dependent Resurvey and 

Survey,’’ approved on April 24, 2008, by 

Jay M. Innes, Acting Chief, Cadastral 

Surveyor for New Mexico; and 

6. An appropriate indemnification 

clause protecting the United States from 

claims arising out of the patentee’s use, 

occupancy, or operations on the 

patented lands. Additional detailed 

information concerning this Notice of 

Realty Action, including environmental 

documents, is available for review at the 

address above. 

On September 30, 2010, the land 

described above will be segregated from 

all other forms of appropriation under 

the public land laws, including the 

mining laws, except for conveyance 

under the Federal Land and Policy 

Management Act and leasing under the 

mineral leasing laws. Until completion 

of the sale, the BLM is no longer 

accepting land use applications 

affecting the identified public land, 

except applications for the amendment 

of previously filed rights-of-way 

applications or existing authorizations 

to increase the term of the grants in 

accordance with 43 CFR 2807.15 and 

2886.15. The segregative effect will end 

upon issuance of a patent or other 

document of conveyance, publication in 

the Federal Register of a termination of 

the segregation, or 2 years from the date 

of publication of this Notice, whichever 

occurs first, unless extended by the 

BLM State Director in accordance with 

43 CFR 2711.1–2(d) prior to the 

termination date. 

Public comments regarding the 

proposed sale may be submitted in 

writing to the attention of the BLM Rio 

Puerco—Manager (see ADDRESSES

above) on or before November 15, 2010. 

Comments received in electronic form, 

such as e-mail or facsimile, will not be 

considered. Any adverse comments 

regarding the proposed sale will be 

reviewed by the BLM State Director or 

other authorized official of the 

Department, who may sustain, vacate, or 

modify this realty action in whole or in 

part. In the absence of timely filed 

objections, this realty action will 

become the final determination of the 

Department of the Interior. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, be advised 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 from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 43 CFR 2711.1–2(a) and (c). 

Thomas E. Gow, 

Field Manager, Rio Puerco Field Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24600 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–AG–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–680] 

In the Matter of Certain Machine Vision 

Software, Machine Vision Systems, 

and Products Containing Same; Notice 

of Commission Decision To Review-InPart A Final Initial Determination 

Finding No Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to reviewin-part a final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) of the presiding administrative 

law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 

U.S.C. 1337) in the above-captioned 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2310. 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES6

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Notices 60479 

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 July 16, 2009 based on a complaint 

filed on May 28, 2009, by Cognex 

Corporation of Natick, Massachusetts 

and Cognex Technology & Investment 

Corporation of Mountain View, 

California (collectively ‘‘complainants’’). 

74 FR 34589–90 (July 16, 2009). The 

complaint alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 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 machine vision software, 

machine vision systems, or products 

containing same by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,016,539 (‘‘the ‘539 patent); 

7,065,262 (‘‘the ‘262 patent’’); and 

6,959,112 (‘‘the ‘112 patent’’). The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. 

The complaint named numerous 

respondents including the following: 

Multitest Elektronische Systems GmbH 

of Germany and Multitest Electronic 

Systems, Inc. of Santa Clara, California 

(collectively, ‘‘Multitest respondents’’); 

Yxlon International GmbH of Germany 

and Yxlon International, Inc. of 

Mogadore, Ohio (collectively, ‘‘Yxlon 

respondents’’); Amistar Automation, Inc. 

(‘‘Amistar’’) of San Marcos, California; 

Techno Soft Systemnics, Inc. (‘‘Techno 

Soft’’) of Japan; Fuji Machine 

Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan and 

Fuji America Corporation of Vernon 

Hills, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Fuji 

respondents’’); E. Zoller GmbH & Co. KG 

of Germany and Zoller, Inc. of Ann 

Arbor, Michigan (collectively, ‘‘Zoller 

respondents’’); IDS Imaging 

Development Systems GmbH of 

Germany and IDS Development 

Systems, Inc. of Woburn, Massachusetts 

(collectively, ‘‘IDS respondents’’); Delta 

Design, Inc. (‘‘Delta’’) of Poway, 

California; Subtechnique, Inc. 

(‘‘Subtechnique’’) of Alexandria, 

Virginia; Rasco GmbH (‘‘Rasco’’) of 

Germany; MVTec Software GmbH of 

Germany and MVTec LLC of Cambridge, 

Massachusetts (collectively, ‘‘MVTech 

respondents’’); Omron Corporation 

(‘‘Omron’’) of Japan, Resolution 

Technology, Inc. (‘‘Resolution’’) of 

Dublin, Ohio; Visics Corp. (‘‘Visics’’) of 

Wellesley, Massachusetts; Daiichi 

Jitsugyo Viswill Co., Ltd. of Japan; and 

Daiichi Jitsugyo (America), Inc. of Wood 

Dale, Illinois (collectively, ‘‘Daiichi 

respondents’’). 

On November 19, 2009, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decisions not to review IDs terminating 

the investigation as to the Multitest 

respondents and the Yxlon respondents 

based on a consent order and settlement 

agreement. On February 16, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decisions not to review IDs terminating 

the investigation as to Amistar based on 

a consent order and settlement 

agreement, and as to Techno Soft based 

on partial withdrawal of the complaint. 

On April 20, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to the Fuji respondents 

based on a settlement agreement. On 

May 5, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decisions not to review IDs 

terminating the investigation as to the 

Multitest respondents based on a 

consent order and settlement agreement, 

and as to the Zoller respondents, the 

IDS respondents, and Delta based on 

partial withdrawal of the complaint. On 

June 11, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decision not to review an 

ID terminating the investigation as to 

Subtechnique based on a consent order. 

On June 18, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to Rasco based on a 

consent order and settlement agreement 

(notice of rescission and issuance of 

revised order on July 6, 2010). 

The respondents remaining in the 

investigation include: MVTec 

respondents, Omron, Resolution, Visics, 

and the Daiichi respondents. 

On April 9, 2010, the Commission 

issued notice of its decision not to 

review an ID terminating the 

investigation as to the ‘112 patent on the 

basis of partial withdrawal of the 

complaint. On April 20, 2010, the 

Commission issued notice of its 

decision not to review an ID granting 

complainants’ motion for summary 

determination on the economic prong of 

the domestic industry requirement with 

respect to the remaining asserted 

patents, the ‘539 and ‘262 patents. On 

May 18, 2010, the Commission issued 

notice of its decision not to review an 

ID granting complainants’ motion for 

summary determination that the 

importation element under Section 

337(a)(1)(B) has been satisfied as to the 

MVTech respondents, Omron, and the 

Daiichi respondents. 

On July 16, 2010, the ALJ issued his 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337 by the remaining respondents. He 

concluded that each accused product 

did not infringe any asserted claim of 

the ‘539 or ‘262 patents. Also, he found 

that claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 29 of the 

‘262 patent are anticipated under 35 

U.S.C. 102. Further, he found that all 

asserted claims of both patents are 

invalid, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 101, for 

failure to claim patent-eligible subject 

matter. On August 2, 2010, 

complainants, respondents, and the 

Commission investigative attorney each 

filed a petition for review of the final ID. 

Each party filed responses to the other 

parties’ petitions on August 10, 2010. 

Upon considering the parties’ filings 

and the record, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the following: (1) 

Relating to the ‘539 patent, the ALJ’s 

construction of the claim terms ‘‘test,’’ 

‘‘match score surface,’’ and ‘‘gradient 

direction,’’ all of his infringement 

findings except for the claim steps 

containing the limitations ‘‘locating 

local maxima’’ and ‘‘comparing the 

magnitude of each local maxima,’’ and 

his invalidity and domestic industry 

findings; (2) the ALJ’s finding that the 

‘539 and ‘262 patents are invalid, 

pursuant to section 101, for failure to 

claim patent-eligible subject matter; and 

(3) the ALJ’s findings concerning 

anticipation of claims 1, 12, 13, 28, and 

29 of the ‘262 patent. The Commission 

has determined not to review the 

remainder of the ID. 

On review, the parties are requested 

to submit briefing limited to the 

following issue: 

How would adopting complainants’ 

proposed construction for the claim 

terms ‘‘test,’’ ‘‘match score surface,’’ and 

‘‘gradient direction’’ relating to the ‘539 

patent affect the ID’s infringement, 

domestic industry, and invalidity 

findings. 

In addressing the issue, the parties are 

requested to make specific reference to 

the evidentiary record and to cite 

relevant authority. The written 

submissions must be filed no later than 

close of business on October 8, 2010. 

Reply submissions must be filed no later 

than the close of business on October 

15. No further submissions on this issue 

will be permitted unless otherwise 

ordered by the Commission. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES6

60480 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 189 / Thursday, September 30, 2010 / Notices 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in 

sections 210.42(h) and 210.43 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h), 210.43. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 24, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24565 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–686] 

In the Matter of Certain Bulk Welding 

Wire Containers and Components 

Thereof and Welding Wire; Notice of 

Commission Determination To ReviewIn-Part a Final Initial Determination and 

To Affirm the Finding of No Violation 

of Section 337; Termination of the 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review a 

portion of the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on July 

29, 2010 finding no violation of section 

337 in the above-captioned 

investigation, but to affirm his finding of 

no violation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jia 

Chen, Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436, telephone (202) 708–4737. 

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 September 8, 2009, based on a 

complaint filed by the Lincoln Electric 

Company of Cleveland, Ohio and 

Lincoln Global, Inc. of City of Industry, 

California (collectively, ‘‘Lincoln’’). 74 

FR 46223 (Sept. 8, 2009). The complaint 

alleged violations 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 bulk welding wire containers, 

components thereof, and welding wire 

by reason of infringement of certain 

claims of United States Patent Nos. 

6,260,781; 6,648,141; 6,708,864 (‘‘the 

‘864 patent’’); 6,913,145; 7,309,038; 

7,398,881; and 7,410,111. ld. The 

amended complaint named the 

following respondents: Atlantic China 

Welding Consumables, Inc. of Sichuan, 

China (‘‘Atlantic’’); The ESAB Group, 

Inc. of Florence, South Carolina 

(‘‘ESAB’’); Hyundai Welding Co., Ltd. of 

Seoul, Korea (‘‘Hyundai’’); Kiswel Co., 

Ltd. of Seoul, Korea (‘‘Kiswel’’); and 

Sidergas SpA of Ambrogio (Verona), 

Italy (‘‘Sidergas’’). 74 FR 61706 (Nov. 25, 

2009). Respondents Hyundai, Kiswel, 

and Atlantic were subsequently 

terminated from the investigation, 

leaving ESAB and Sidergas as the only 

respondents remaining. In addition, all 

but the ‘864 patent were terminated 

from this investigation. 

On July 29, 2010, the ALJ issued a 

final ID finding no violation of Section 

337 by respondents ESAB or Sidergas. 

The ALJ concluded that none of the 

accused ESAB and Sidergas products 

infringe asserted claims 3, 4, 6, 12, or 13 

of the ‘864 patent. The ALJ further 

concluded that claim 3 of the ‘864 

patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) 

and that claims 4, 6, 12, and 13 of the 

‘864 patent are valid and enforceable. 

The ALJ did find that complainant 

satisfied both the technical and the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement with respect to the 

‘864 patent. On August 11, 2010, 

Lincoln filed a petition for review. On 

the same day, respondents ESAB and 

Sidergas filed a consolidated petition for 

review. The IA did not file a petition for 

review. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID and the submissions of the parties, 

the Commission has determined to 

affirm the ALJ’s determination that there 

is no violation of Section 337. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to affirm the ALJ’s 

determination that there is no literal 

infringement of the asserted claims. The 

Commission has also determined to 

affirm the ALJ’s determination that there 

is no infringement of the asserted claims 

under the doctrine of equivalents based 

on (1) the ALJ’s finding that substantial 

differences exist between the accused 

products and the asserted claims, and 

(2) the ALJ’s application of Johnson & 

Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Services 

Co., 285 F.3d 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en 

banc). The Commission has determined 

to review the following four issues and 

to take no position on them: (1) The 

claim construction of the terms 

‘‘substantially lying in a single plane’’ 

recited in independent claim 3 and 

‘‘substantially in one plane’’ recited in 

independent claims 6 and 12; (2) the 

priority date of the asserted claims; (3) 

invalidity of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 

102(b); and (4) validity of claims 4, 6, 

12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). No 

other issues are being reviewed. 

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 and 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 C.F.R. 210.42–46 and 

210.50). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: September 24, 2010. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24566 Filed 9–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0040] 

Concrete and Masonry Construction; 

Extension of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Approval of 

Information Collection (Paperwork) 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public 

comments concerning its proposal to 

extend the Office of Management and 

Budget’s (OMB) approval of the 

information collection requirements 

specified in the Standard on Concrete 

and Masonry Construction (29 CFR part 

1926, subpart Q). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

(postmarked, sent, or received) by 

November 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may 

submit comments and attachments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for submitting 

comments. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES6