67302 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

Concessioner Id

No. Concessioner name Park

ZION001 ............. Bryce/Zion Trail Rides .............................................................. Zion National Park.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia Orlando, Concession Program

Manager, National Park Service,

Washington, DC, 20240, Telephone 202/

565–1210.

Dated: November 28, 2001.

Richard G. Ring,

Associate Director, Park Operations and

Education.

[FR Doc. 01–31892 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–M

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Inv. No. 337–TA–443]

Certain Flooring Products; Notice of

Commission Decisions to Review

Portions of a Final Initial Determination

and to Extend by 30 Days the Target

Date for Completion of the

Investigation; Schedule for Written

Submissions on the Issues Under

Review and on Remedy, the Public

Interest, and Bonding

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined to grant

Roysol’s motion to join the November

30, 2001, motion to strike and

alternative motion to reply of Unilin

and Pergo; to grant complainants’

motion to respond to the November 30,

2001, motion of Unilin and Pergo; to

grant Unilin and Pergo’s motion to

reply; to deny Unilin and Pergo’s

motion to strike; to extend the target

date for completion of the investigation

by 30 days to March 7, 2002; and to

review portions of a final initial

determination (ID) of the presiding

administrative law judge (ALJ) finding

no violation of section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, in the abovecaptioned investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clara Kuehn, Esq., or David Wilson,

Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436,

telephone (202) 205–3012 and (202)

708–2310, respectively. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on this matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. General information

concerning the Commission may also be

obtained by accessing its Internet server

(http://www.usitc.gov).

Copies of the public version of the

ALJ’s ID 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission ordered the institution of

this investigation on December 27, 2000,

based on a complaint filed on behalf of

Alloc, Inc., Racine, Wisconsin; Berry

Finance N.V., Oostrozebeke, Belgium;

and Va ̈linge Aluminum AB, Viken,

Sweden (collectively ‘‘complainants’’).

66 FR 1155 (2001). The notice of

investigation was published in the

Federal Register on January 5, 2001. Id.

The complaint, as supplemented,

alleged violations of section 337 in the

importation, the sale for importation,

and the sale within the United States

after importation of certain flooring

products by reason of infringement of

claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–12, 14–15, 17–36,

and 38–41 of U.S. Letters Patent

5,860,267 (‘‘the ’267 patent’’) and claims

1–14 of U.S. Letters Patent 6,023,907

(‘‘the ’907 patent’’). Id. The Commission

named seven respondents: Unilin De ́cor

N.V., Wielsbeke, Belgium; BHK of

America, Inc., Central Valley, NY;

Meister-Leisten Schulte GmbH, Ru ̈then,

Germany (collectively, Unilin); Pergo,

Inc., Raleigh, NC (‘‘Pergo’’); Akzenta

Paneele + Profile GmbH, Kaisersesch,

Germany (‘‘Akzenta’’); Tarkett, Inc.,

Whitehall, PA; and Roysol, SaintFlorentin, France (‘‘Roysol’’).

On March 5, 2001, the ALJ issued an

ID (ALJ Order No. 8) granting

complainants’ motion to amend the

complaint and notice of investigation to

add allegations of infringement of

claims 1, 8, 13–14, 21, 26–27, 34, 39–

41, and 48 of U.S. Letters Patent

6,182,410 (‘‘the ’410 patent’’). On July

10, 2001, the ALJ issued an ID (ALJ

Order No. 26) granting complainants’

motion for summary determination on

the economic prong of the domestic

industry requirement. Those IDs were

not reviewed by the Commission. An

evidentiary hearing was held from July

26, 2001, through August 1, 2001. The

ALJ heard closing arguments on October

16, 2001. On October 19, 2001, the ALJ

issued an ID (ALJ Order No. 30) granting

complainants’ unopposed motion to

terminate the investigation with respect

to claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–12, 14–15, 17–18,

20–22, 24–36, 38, and 40–41 of the ’267

patent; claims 4–14 of the ’907 patent;

and claims 8, 13–14, 21, 27, 34, and 40

of the ’410 patent. On October 25, 2001,

the ALJ issued an ID (ALJ Order No. 31)

terminating the investigation as to

respondent Tarkett, Inc. Those IDs were

not reviewed by the Commission. The

only asserted claims remaining in the

investigation are claims 19, 23, and 39

of the ’267 patent, claims 1–3 of the ’907

patent, and claims 1, 26, 39, 41, and 48

of the ’410 patent.

The ALJ issued his final ID on

November 2, 2001, concluding that

there was no violation of section 337,

based on the following findings: (a)

Complainants have not established that

any of the asserted claims are infringed

by any of the respondents; (b)

respondents have failed to establish that

the asserted claims of each of the ’267,

’907, and ’410 patents are not valid; (c)

no domestic industry exists that exploits

any of the ’267, ’907, and ’410 patents;

and (d) it has not been established that

complainants misused any of the

patents in issue. The ALJ also made

recommendations regarding remedy and

bonding in the event the Commission

concludes there is a violation of section

337.

On November 15, 2001, complainants

and the Commission investigative

attorney (‘‘IA’’) petitioned for review of

the ID. On November 23, 2001,

respondents Unilin, Pergo, Roysol, and

Akzenta, and complainants filed

responses to the petitions for review. On

November 30, 2001, Unilin and Pergo

moved to strike portions of

complainants’ response of November 23,

2001, and in the alternative moved for

leave to reply to complainants’

response. On December 4, 2001,

Respondent Roysol moved to join the

motion to strike. On December 10, 2001,

complainants responded to the motion

to strike. The Commission has

determined to grant Roysol’s motion to

join, to grant Unilin and Pergo’s motion

to reply and complainants’ motion to

respond, and to deny the motion to

strike.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices 67303

Having examined the record in this

investigation, including the ID, the

petitions for review, and the responses

thereto, the Commission has determined

to review:

(1) The ID’s construction of the

asserted claims of the ’410 patent;

(2) The ID’s construction of the

asserted claims of the ’267 and ’907

patents, except not to review the ID’s

construction of those claims apart from

35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6;

(3) The ID’s infringement conclusions

with respect to the ’410, ’267, and ’907

patents, except not to review the ID’s

conclusions that (a) the asserted claims

of the ’267 and ’907 patents are not

infringed when those claims are

construed apart from 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6

and (b) complainants have not

established that there are no substantial

noninfringing uses for the accused

products and hence there is no

contributory infringement;

(4) The ID’s validity conclusions with

respect to the ’267, ’410, and ’907

patents, except not to review the ID’s

validity conclusions when the asserted

claims of the ’267 and ’907 patents are

construed apart from 35 U.S.C. 12, ¶ 6;

(5) The ID’s conclusions with respect

to the technical prong of the domestic

industry requirement with respect to the

’410, ’267, and ’907 patents, except not

to review the ID’s conclusions that

complainants have failed to establish

the technical prong of the domestic

industry requirement when the asserted

claims of the ’267 and ’907 patents are

construed apart from 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6.

The Commission has also determined

to review the procedural question of

whether complainants waived the issue

of whether the accused products

infringe the asserted claims of the

patents in controversy to the extent that

the asserted claims are construed under

35 U.S.C, 112, ¶ 6 to cover equivalents

of the structure disclosed in the

specification, viz., equivalents of a

mechanical joint with play, by failing to

raise the issue before the ALJ.

The Commission has determined not

to review the remainder of the ID,

including the ID’s conclusions with

respect to patent misuse.

On review, the Commission requests

briefing based on the evidentiary record

on all issues under review and is

particularly interested in receiving

answers to the following questions, with

all answers cited to the evidentiary

record. For purposes of focusing the

briefing, the questions present tentative

resolution of some claim construction

issues (e.g., applicability of 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶ 6 and identification of claimed

functions associated with means-plusfunction limitations).

1. Have complainants waived the

issue of whether, if the asserted claims

of the ’907, ’267, or

’410 patents are construed under 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶ 6 to require ‘‘play,’’ flooring

panels without play are ‘‘equivalent’’ for

purposes of 112, ¶ 6 to flooring panels

with ‘‘play’’ by failing to raise the issue

before the ALJ?

2. Assuming for purposes of this

question that 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6 applies

to the limitation ‘‘the

two panels are * * * mechanically locked to

each other in a second direction, that is at

right angles to said first direction and to the

adjacent joint edges, as a result of a first

locking member disposed at one of the

adjacent edges being connected to a second

locking member disposed at the other one of

the adjacent edges, and * * * being

displaceable in relation to each other in the

direction of the adjacent joint edges’’ in claim

1 of the ’907 patent (and dependent claims

2 and 3), and that the function of the ‘‘first

locking member’’ and ‘‘second locking

member’’ is that when the locking members

are connected, ‘‘the two panels are * * *

mechanically locked to each other’’ in the

horizontal direction at right angles to the

adjacent joint edges and the two panels are

‘‘displaceable in relation to each other in the

direction of the adjacent joint edges’’:

What are the corresponding

structure(s) disclosed in the

specification that perform the function

identified above?

Construing the limitation under 35

U.S.C. 112, ¶6 using the above-stated

function and the corresponding

structure(s) that you identified, please

answer the following questions: (In your

response, please address the 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶6 equivalents to the

corresponding structures)

(a) Do respondents infringe any of the

three claims?

(b) Are the claims invalid?

(c) Do complainants meet the

technical prong of the domestic industry

requirement as to claims 1, 2, or 3?

3. Assuming that 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6

applies to the ‘‘locking means’’ of claim

1 of the ’410 patent, and that the

function of the claimed ‘‘locking

means’’ is (a) ‘‘Forming a first

mechanical connection for locking said

adjacent edges to each other in a vertical

direction,’’ (b) ‘‘forming a second

mechanical connection for locking said

adjacent edges to each other in a

horizontal direction at right angles to

said edges,’’ (c) ‘‘operat[ing] as a oneway snap lock in said horizontal

direction,’’ and (d) ‘‘enabl[ing] said

adjacent panels,’’ when connected by

the first and second connections, to be

rotated ‘‘so as to move the locking

element out of the locking groove in

order to unlock said one-way snap

lock’’:

What are the corresponding

structure(s) disclosed in the

specification that perform the function

identified above?

Construing the limitation under 35

U.S.C. 112, ¶6 using the above-stated

function and the corresponding

structure(s) that you identified, please

answer the following questions: (In your

response, please address the 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶6 equivalents to the

corresponding structures)

(a) Do respondents’ products infringe

claim 1?

(b) Is claim 1 invalid?

(c) Do complainants meet the

technical prong of the domestic industry

requirement as to claim 1?

4. Assuming for purposes of this

question that 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6 applies

to the ‘‘locking means’’ of claim 26 of

the ’410 patent, and that the function of

the claimed ‘‘locking means’’ is (a)

‘‘releasably locking,’’ (b) ‘‘forming a first

mechanical connection for locking said

adjacent first edges to each other in a

vertical direction,’’ (c) ‘‘forming a

second mechanical connection for

locking said adjacent short edges to each

other in a horizontal direction at right

angles to said first edges,’’ and (d)

‘‘operat[ing] as a one-way snap lock in

said horizontal direction’’:

What are the corresponding

structure(s) disclosed in the

specification that perform the function

identified above?

Construing the limitation under 35

U.S.C. 112, ¶6 using the above-stated

function and the corresponding

structure(s) that you identified, please

answer the following questions: (In your

response, please address the 35 U.S.C.

112, ¶6 equivalents to the

corresponding structures)

(a) Do respondents’ products infringe

claim 26?

(b) Is claim 26 invalid?

(c) Do complainants meet the

technical prong of the domestic industry

requirement as to claim 26?

5. Assuming for purposes of this

question that 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6 applies

to the ‘‘means for mechanically locking

***’’ limitation of claim 39 of the ’410

patent:

What is the function recited in claim

39 for this means?

What are the corresponding

structure(s) disclosed in the

specification that perform the function?

Are there other means-plus-function

limitations in claim 39? If so, for each

limitation identify the recited function

and corresponding structure(s)

disclosed in the specification that

perform the function.

Construing the limitation under 35

U.S.C. 112, ¶6 using the function(s) and

67304 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 249 / Friday, December 28, 2001 / Notices

1The Commission made affirmative

determinations with regard to certain carbon and

alloy steel, including (1) slabs, (2) plate, (3) hotrolled steel, (4) cold-rolled steel, (5) coated steel, (6)

hot bar, (7) cold bar, (8) rebar, (9) welded tubular

products other than OCTG, and (10) fittings; and

stainless steel (11) bar and (12) rod.

The Commission was equally divided in its

determination with regard to (1) carbon and alloy

steel tin mill products, (2) tool steel, (3) stainless

steel wire, and (4) stainless steel fittings. Pursuant

to section 330(d)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, where

the Commission is equally divided, the

determination of either group of Commissioners

may be considered by the President to be the

determination of the Commission.

The Commission made negative determinations

with regard to carbon and alloy steel (1) GOES, (2)

ingots, (3) rails, (4) wire, (5) rope, (6) nails, (7)

shapes, (8) fabricated structural units, (9) seamless

tubular products other than OCTG, (10) seamless

OCTG, and (11) welded OCTG; and stainless steel

(12) slabs/ingots, (13) plate, (14) cloth, (15) rope,

(16) seamless tubular products, and (17) welded

tubular products.

Descriptions of the products covered by the

investigation and their corresponding subheadings

under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) is

presented in appendix A.

the corresponding structure(s) that you

identified, please answer the following

questions: (In your response, please

address the 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6

equivalents to the corresponding

structures)

Do respondents’ products infringe

claim 39?

Is claim 39 invalid?

Please repeat the above analysis for

dependent claims 41 and 48.

Do complainants meet the technical

prong of the domestic industry

requirement as to claim 39?

6. Assuming for purposes of this

question that 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶6 does not

apply to the ‘‘means for mechanically

locking * * *’’ limitation of claim 39 or

to any other means-plus-function

limitations that you identified for this

claim in the previous question:

How should claims 39, 41, and 48 be

construed?

So construed, do respondents’

products infringe claims 39, 41, or 48?

So construed, are claims 39, 41, or 48

invalid?

So construed, do complainants meet

the technical prong of the domestic

industry requirement as to claim 39?

7. Have complainants established that

respondents possessed specific intent to

encourage another’s infringement, i.e.,

have complainants shown (1) that each

respondent’s actions induced infringing

acts and (2) that each respondent knew

or should have known his actions

would induce actual infringements?

Each party is requested to provide

citations to the record for evidentiary

support. E.g., in particular a citation is

requested for the following exhibits

referenced in the parties’ petitions for

review and responses: the June 21, 2000,

opinion letter from Akzenta and

Tarkett’s counsel (IA’s petition at 29)

and Roysol’s patent and flooring panels

(Roysol’s response at 16).

In connection with the final

disposition of this investigation, the

Commission may issue (1) an order that

could result in the exclusion of the

subject articles from entry into the

United States, and/or (2) cease and

desist orders that could result in

respondents 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, 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 that either

are adversely affecting it or are likely to

do so. For background information, see

the Commission Opinion, In the Matter

of Certain Devices for Connecting

Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv.

No. 337–TA–360.

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

a bond, in an amount to be 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 submission should be

concise and thoroughly referenced to

the record in this investigation,

including references to exhibits and

testimony. Additionally, the parties to

the investigation, interested government

agencies, and any other interested

persons are encouraged to file written

submissions on the issues of remedy,

the public interest, and bonding. Such

submissions should address the ALJ’s

November 2, 2001, recommended

determination on remedy and bonding.

Complainant and the Commission

investigative attorney are also requested

to submit proposed remedial orders for

the Commission’s consideration. The

written submissions and proposed

remedial orders must be filed no later

than the close of business on January 10,

2002. Reply submissions must be filed

no later than the close of business on

January 17, 2002. No further

submissions will be permitted unless

otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions

must file with the Office of the Secretary

the original and 14 true copies thereof

on or before the deadlines stated above.

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 19 CFR 201.6.

Documents for which confidential

treatment is granted by the Commission

will be treated accordingly. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection at

the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1337),

and in sections 210.42–.45 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42–210.45).

Issued: December 20, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31978 Filed 12–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[Investigation No. TA–201–73]

Steel; Import Investigations

Determination

On the basis of information developed

in the subject investigation, the United

States International Trade

Commission—

(1) Determines pursuant to section

202(b) of the Tariff Act of 1974, that

certain steel products 1 are being