Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25579 

SUMMARY: Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), Colorado State Office, 

Lakewood, Colorado, hereby gives 

notice that the public meeting will be 

held to receive comments on the 

Environmental Analysis (EA), Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI), 

Maximum Economic Recovery (MER), 

and Fair Market Value (FMV) of federal 

coal to be offered for a competitive lease 

sale. Coal Lease By Application (LBA) 

COC–70615 was filed by Oxbow 

Mining, LLC. The BLM plans to offer for 

competitive lease 789.79 acres of 

Federal coal in Gunnison County, 

Colorado. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

at 7 p.m., Wednesday, July 8, 2009. 

Written comments should be received 

no later than July 22, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held in the Paonia Town Hall located at 

214 Grand Avenue, Paonia, Colorado. 

Written comments should be addressed 

to the Uncompahgre Field Office 

Manager, Uncompahgre Field Office, 

2505 South Townsend Avenue, 

Montrose, Colorado 81401. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Field Office Manager, Uncompahgre 

Field Office at the address above, or by 

telephone at 970–240–5300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BLM 

hereby gives notice that a public 

meeting will be held on Wednesday, 

July 8, 2009, at 7 p.m., at the Paonia 

Town Hall at the address given above. 

An LBA was filed by Oxbow Mining, 

LLC. The BLM offers for competitive 

lease federal coal in the lands outside 

established coal production regions 

described as: 

T. 13 S., R. 90 NW., 6th P.M., Sections 

3, 4, 5, more particularly described 

as follows: 

Beginning at a point on the North 

Section line at the Section Corner 

common to Sections 4 and 5; thence S. 

87°22′08′′ E. 5765.75 feet; thence S. 

87°32′05′′ E. 1604.94 feet; thence S. 

0°04′31′′ W. 4246.44 feet; thence N. 

86°45′23′′ W. 1558.38 feet; thence N. 

84°12′17′′ W. 5148.60 feet; thence N. 

86°44′37′′ W. 1321.91 feet; to the 

existing lease line for Coal lease COC– 

61357; thence along said existing lease 

line N. 10°00′13′′ W. 1382.68 feet; 

thence N. 86°08′20′′ W. 390.65 feet; 

thence N. 00°1135.85 feet; to the 

southeasterly boundary of Tract 4; 

thence N. 14°36′45′′ E. 1463.19 feet; 

along said southeasterly boundary of 

Tract 4; thence S. 87°18′59′′ E. 902.22 

feet; along the north section line of 

section 5 to the Point of beginning. 

Containing approximately 789.79 

acres in Gunnison County, Colorado. 

The coal resource to be offered is 

limited to coal recoverable by 

underground mining methods. One 

purpose of the meeting is to obtain 

public comments on the following 

items: 

(1) The method of mining to be 

employed to obtain maximum economic 

recovery of the coal, 

(2) The impact that mining the coal in 

the proposed leasehold may have on the 

area, and 

(3) The methods of determining the 

fair market value of the coal to be 

offered. 

(4) EA and the FONSI. 

In addition, the public is invited to 

submit written comments concerning 

the MER and FMV of the coal resource. 

Public comments will be utilized in 

establishing FMV for the coal resource 

in the described lands. Comments 

should address specific factors related 

to fair market value including, but not 

limited to: 

1. The quality and quantity of the coal 

resource. 

2. The price that the mined coal 

would bring in the market place. 

3. The cost of producing the coal. 

4. The interest rate at which 

anticipated income streams would be 

discounted. 

5. Depreciation and other accounting 

factors. 

6. The mining method or methods 

which would achieve maximum 

economic recovery of the coal. 

7. Documented information on the 

terms and conditions of recent and 

similar coal land transactions in the 

lease area, and 

8. Any comparable sales data of 

similar coal lands in the lease area. 

Written requests to testify orally at the 

July 8, 2009, public meeting should be 

received at the Uncompahgre Field 

Office prior to the close of business July 

8, 2009. Those who indicate they wish 

to testify when they register at the 

meeting may have an opportunity if 

time is available. If any information 

submitted as comments are considered 

to be proprietary by the commenter, the 

information should be labeled as such 

and stated in the first page of the 

submission. Written comments on the 

MER, and FMV should be sent to the 

Uncompahgre Field Office at the above 

address prior to the close of business on 

July 22, 2009, the end of the 30 day 

public comment period. 

Substantive comments, whether 

written or oral, will receive equal 

consideration prior to any lease offering. 

The MER Report is available from the 

Uncompahgre Field Office upon 

request. A copy of the MER Report, the 

case file, and the comments submitted 

by the public, except those portions 

identified as proprietary by the 

commenter and meeting exemptions 

stated in the Freedom of Information 

Act, will be available for public 

inspection after July 22, 2009, at the 

Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield, 

Lakewood, Colorado 80215. 

Before including your 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. 

Dated: May 21, 2009. 

Kurt M. Barton, 

Solid Minerals LLE, Division of Energy, Lands 

and Minerals. 

[FR Doc. E9–12333 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–605] 

In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor 

Chips With Minimized Chip Package 

Size and Products Containing Same; 

Notice of Commission Final 

Determination of Violation of Section 

337; Termination of Investigation; 

Issuance of Limited Exclusion Order 

and Cease and Desist Orders 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined that there 

is a violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 by 

Spansion, Inc. and Spansion, LLC, both 

of Sunnyvale, California (collectively 

‘‘Spansion’’); QUALCOMM, Inc. of San 

Diego, California (‘‘Qualcomm’’); ATI 

Technologies of Thornhill, Ontario, 

Canada (‘‘ATI’’); Motorola, Inc. of 

Schaumburg, Illinois (‘‘Motorola’’); 

STMicroelectronics N.V. of Geneva, 

Switzerland (‘‘ST–NV’’); and Freescale 

Semiconductor, Inc. of Austin, Texas 

(‘‘Freescale’’) (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’) in the above-captioned 

investigation. The investigation is 

terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

25580 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 

708–2301. 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 May 21, 2007, based on a complaint 

filed by Tessera against Spansion, 

Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, ST–NV, and 

Freescale. 72 FR 28522 (May 21, 2007). 

The complaint alleges 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 semiconductor chips with 

minimized chip package size or 

products containing same by reason of 

infringement of one or more claims of 

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,852,326, and 

6,433,419. 

On December 1, 2008, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

his final ID finding no violation of 

Section 337 by Respondents. The ID 

included the ALJ’s recommended 

determination (‘‘RD’’) on remedy and 

bonding. In his ID, the ALJ found that 

Respondents’ accused products do not 

infringe the asserted claims the ‘326 

patent or the asserted claims of the ‘419 

patent. The ALJ additionally found that 

the asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 

patents are not invalid for failing to 

satisfy the enablement requirement or 

the written description requirement of 

35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 1. The ALJ further found 

that the asserted claims of the ‘326 and 

‘419 patents are not invalid as indefinite 

of 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 2. The ALJ also found 

that the asserted claims of the ‘326 and 

‘419 patents are not invalid under 35 

U.S.C. § 102 for anticipation or under 35 

U.S.C. 103 for obviousness. Finally, the 

ALJ found that an industry in the 

United States exists with respect to the 

‘326 and ‘419 patents as required by 19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(2) and (3). In his RD, the 

ALJ recommended that, should the 

Commission determine that a violation 

exists, a limited exclusion order 

(‘‘LEO’’) would be properly directed to 

Respondents’ accused chip packages 

and to the downstream products of 

Motorola, a named respondent. 

On December 15, 2008, Tessera and 

the Commission investigative attorney 

(‘‘IA’’) filed separate petitions seeking 

review of the ALJ’s determination 

concerning non-infringement of the 

asserted claims of the ‘326 and ‘419 

patents. Also on December 15, 2008, 

Respondents filed various contingent 

petitions seeking review of certain 

aspects of the ALJ’s findings as concern 

both the ‘326 and ‘419 patents in the 

event that the Commission determined 

to review the ID’s findings concerning 

non-infringement. On December 23, 

2008, Respondents filed an opposition 

to Tessera’s and the IA’s petitions for 

review, and Tessera and the IA filed 

separate responses to Respondents’ 

various contingent petitions for review. 

On January 30, 2009, the Commission 

determined to review the final ID in part 

and requested briefing on the issues it 

determined to review, remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding. 74 FR 

6175–6 (Feb. 5, 2009). The Commission 

determined to review: (1) The ALJ’s 

finding that Respondents’ accused 

devices do not infringe the asserted 

claims the ‘326 and ‘419 patents; (2) the 

ALJ’s finding that Tessera has waived 

any argument that the accused products 

indirectly infringe the ‘419 patent; (3) 

the ALJ’s finding that Motorola’s 

invention of the 1989 68HC11 OMPAC 

chip (‘‘OMPAC’’) does not anticipate the 

asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. 102(b); 

and (4) the ALJ’s finding that the 

Motorola’s OMPAC invention does not 

anticipate the asserted patents under 35 

U.S.C. 102(g). Id. The Commission 

determined not to review the remaining 

issues decided in the ID. On February 6, 

2009, Respondents filed a motion to 

extend the briefing schedule. On 

February 10, 2009, the Commission 

issued a Notice extending the deadline 

for receiving initial submissions and 

reply submissions in light of the fact 

that the ALJ did not issue the public 

version of the final ID until February 9, 

2009. The Commission also extended 

the target date to April 14, 2009. The 

Commission issued a corrected version 

of the Notice on February 18, 2009, 

clarifying the deadline for reply 

submissions of issues relating to 

violation of Section 337. 

On February 23, 2009, the parties 

filed initial written submissions 

regarding the issues on review, remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. On 

March 5, 2009, the parties filed response 

submissions. Several respondents (‘‘the 

649 Respondents) in co-pending 

investigation Certain Semiconductor 

Chips with Minimized Chip Package 

Size and Products Containing Same, 

Inv. No. 337–TA–649 (‘‘the 649 

Investigation’’), also filed reply briefs on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. In its initial submission on 

remedy, Tessera requested that the 

Commission issue a ‘‘tailored’’ general 

exclusion order (‘‘GEO’’) should the 

Commission determine that there is a 

violation of Section 337. Tessera also 

requested that, should the Commission 

determine that the current record is not 

adequate to support issuance of a GEO, 

the Commission should issue the LEO 

recommended by the ALJ immediately, 

and then conduct further proceedings 

regarding the availability of a tailored 

GEO. The IA concurred. Respondents in 

this investigation and the 649 

Respondents opposed Tessera’s request 

for a ‘‘tailored’’ GEO. On March 9, 2009, 

Siliconware Precision Industries Co., 

Ltd. and Siliconware U.S.A., Inc. 

(collectively ‘‘SPIL Respondents’’), who 

are respondents in the 649 Investigation, 

filed a motion to extend the date for 

filing reply submissions to the 

Commission’s Notice of Review of the 

final ID and to compel the production 

of Tessera’s initial confidential briefing 

in response to the Commission’s Notice. 

In support its February 23, 2009, brief 

on Remedy, the Public Interest and 

Bonding, Tessera submitted an affidavit 

from Dr. Stephen Prowse and a 

statement from Mr. Bernard Cassidy. On 

March 5, 2009, Respondents filed a 

motion to strike Dr. Prowse’s affidavit 

and Mr. Cassidy’s statement. On March 

16, 2009, the IA filed a response in 

support of Respondents’ Motion to 

Strike. 

On March 11, 2009, Spansion filed a 

Notice of Commencement of Bankruptcy 

Proceedings and of Automatic Stay, 

requesting a stay of the investigation 

because it and certain of its subsidiaries 

had filed for relief under Chapter 11 of 

the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 

U.S.C. 101 et seq. Tessera filed an 

opposition to Spansion’s request on 

March 18, 2009, and the IA filed an 

opposition on March 23, 2009. 

On March 26, 2009, the Commission 

issued a Notice requesting additional 

briefing on remedy and extending the 

target date. 74 FR 14820–1 (April 1, 

2009). In the Notice, the Commission 

asked the parties and any interested 

non-parties to address whether Tessera 

is entitled to a GEO under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(d)(2), whether the Commission has 

the authority to issue a ‘‘tailored’’ GEO, 

which would ostensibly reach only 

specified downstream products, and 

whether the Commission has the 

authority to issue an LEO immediately 

and then issue a GEO at a later date 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 101 / Thursday, May 28, 2009 / Notices 25581 

when the Commission concludes the 

investigation. On April 10, 2009, 

Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and 

several interested non-parties filed 

initial written submissions in response 

to the Commission’s request for 

additional briefing on remedy. 

Respondent Spansion did not submit 

any briefing in response to the 

Commission’s request. On April 20, 

2009, Tessera, the IA, Respondents, and 

the SPIL Respondents filed reply 

submissions in response to the 

Commission’s request for additional 

briefing on remedy. On April 20, 2009, 

the Commission issued a Notice in 

response to a motion from Broadcom 

extending the due date for reply 

submissions from interested non-parties 

to April 29, 2009, since the public 

versions of the parties’ initial 

submissions were not due to be filed 

until April 22, 2009. Notice of 

Commission Determination to Extend 

the Deadline for Receiving Reply 

Submission from Interested Parties in 

Response to the Commission’s Request 

for Additional Briefing on Remedy 

(April 20, 2009). On April 29, 2009, the 

interested non-parties submitted their 

reply briefs. 

On April 24, 2009, respondent 

Qualcomm filed a motion for leave to 

file a petition for reconsideration 

pursuant to 19 CFR 210.47 of the 

Commission’s determination not to 

review the ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the patents-in-suit are not 

indefinite. Qualcomm argued that the 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office rejected as ‘‘indefinite’’ under 35 

U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2, new claims submitted 

by Tessera in connection with the 

reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 

6,133,627, one of the parent patents of 

the ‘419 patent. Tessera filed an 

opposition to Qualcomm’s motion on 

April 30, 2009. The IA filed an 

opposition on May 4, 2009. Qualcomm 

filed a reply to Tessera’s and the IA’s 

oppositions on May 5, 2009. 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the Commission has determined to 

reverse the ID’s determination of no 

violation of the ‘326 patent and ‘419 

patent. Specifically, the Commission 

reverses the ID’s finding that 

Respondents’ accused devices do not 

infringe asserted claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 16– 

19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 patent 

and asserted claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, 

and 22–24 of the ‘419 patent. The 

Commission further reverses the ID’s 

conclusion regarding waiver with 

respect to any claims that the accused 

chip packages indirectly infringe the 

asserted claims of the ‘419 patent. 

Moreover, the Commission finds that 

Respondents have contributorily 

infringed the asserted claims of the ‘419 

patent. The Commission also modifies 

the ID’s analysis concerning its finding 

that the ‘326 and ‘419 patents are not 

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) to clarify 

that the statute requires comparing the 

on-sale date of alleged prior art against 

the priority date of the asserted patents, 

not against the conception date of the 

asserted patents. 

The Commission has determined that 

the appropriate form of relief is (1) a 

limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(d)(1) prohibiting the unlicensed 

entry of semiconductor chips with 

minimized chip package size and 

products incorporating these chips that 

infringe one or more of claims 1, 2, 6, 

12, 16–19, 21, 24–26, and 29 of the ‘326 

patent and claims 1–11, 14, 15, 19, and 

22–24 of the ’419 patent, and are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, 

Spansion, Qualcomm, ATI, Motorola, 

ST–NV, and Freescale; and (2) cease and 

desist orders directed to Motorola, 

Qualcomm, Freescale, and Spansion. 

The Commission has further 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in Section 337(d) 

and (f) (19 U.S.C. 1337(d), (f)) do not 

preclude issuance of the limited 

exclusion order and the cease and desist 

orders. The Commission has determined 

that the bond for temporary importation 

during the period of Presidential review 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the 

amount of 3.5% of the value of the 

imported articles that are subject to the 

order. The Commission’s order was 

delivered to the President and the 

United States Trade Representative on 

the day of its issuance. 

Additionally, the Commission denies 

the motion by the SPIL Respondents to 

extend the date for reply submissions to 

the Commission’s Notice of Review of 

the final ID and to compel the 

production of Tessera’s initial 

confidential briefing in response to the 

Commission’s Notice of Review. The 

Commission further denies Spansion’s 

motion for a stay of the investigation in 

light of the commencement of 

bankruptcy proceedings involving it. 

The Commission also denies respondent 

Qualcomm’s motion for leave to file a 

petition for reconsideration of the 

Commission’s determination not to 

review the ID’s finding that the asserted 

claims of the patents-in-suit are not 

indefinite. Finally, the Commission 

denies Respondents’ motion to strike 

the Prowse Affidavit and the Cassidy 

Statement. 

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 210.42–50 of the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

210.42–50). 

Issued: May 20, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–12371 Filed 5–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (09–044)] 

Notice of Centennial Challenges—2009 

Power Beaming Challenge 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of Centennial 

Challenges—2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge. 

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 2459f–1(d). 

This is an update to a previous notice 

(09–12) on the 2009 Power Beaming and 

Tether Challenges. The 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge is now scheduled 

and teams that wish to compete may 

register. A notice on the Tether 

Challenge will be issued at a later time. 

The NASA Centennial Challenges is a 

program of prize contests to stimulate 

innovation and competition in 

technologies of interest and value to 

NASA and the nation. The 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge is a prize 

competition designed to promote the 

development of new power 

transmission technologies with 

applications in energy systems, 

transportation and emergency 

operations. Significant improvements in 

power beaming could contribute to 

revolutionary advances in space 

transportation as well as other areas. 

The Spaceward Foundation 

administers the Power Beaming 

Challenge for NASA. The prize purse is 

funded by NASA. 

DATES: The 2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge will be held on July 14–16, 

2009. 

Location: The 2009 Power Beaming 

Challenge will be held at the Dryden 

Flight Research Center, Edwards, 

California. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

register for and get additional 

information regarding the 2009 Power 

Beaming Challenge including rules, 

team agreements, eligibility and prize 

criteria, visit: http://www.spaceward.org 

or contact Mr. Ben Shelef at the