Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices 1111

to the invention must have a corresponding

written description only so specific as to lead

one having ordinary skill in the art to that

class of compounds. Occasionally, a

functional recitation of those known

compounds in the specification may be

sufficient as that description.’’); In re Smythe,

480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 285

(CCPA 1973) (the phrase ‘‘air or other gas

which is inert to the liquid’’ was sufficient

to support a claim to ‘‘inert fluid media’’

because the description of the properties and

functions of the air or other gas segmentizing

medium would suggest to a person skilled in

the art that appellant’s invention includes the

use of ‘‘inert fluid’’ broadly.). However, in

Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47

USPQ2d at1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the

disclosure of a species in the parent

application did not suffice to provide written

description support for the genus in the child

application. 56 See, e.g., Eli Lilly. 57 For example, in the molecular biology

arts, if an applicant disclosed an amino acid

sequence, it would be unnecessary to provide

an explicit disclosure of nucleic acid

sequences that encoded the amino acid

sequence. Since the genetic code is widely

known, a disclosure of an amino acid

sequence would provide sufficient

information such that one would accept that

an applicant was in possession of the full

genus of nucleic acids encoding a given

amino acid sequence, but not necessarily any

particular species. Cf. In re Bell, 991 F.2d

781, 785, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed. Cir.

1993) and In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382, 29

USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 58 See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191

USPQ at 97 (‘‘[T]he PTO has the initial

burden of presenting evidence or reasons

why persons skilled in the art would not

recognize in the disclosure a description of

the invention defined by the claims.’’). 59 See MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06

(‘‘Applicant should * * * specifically point

out the support for any amendments made to

the disclosure.’’). 60 See, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425,

9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

(Original specification for method of forming

images using photosensitive microcapsules

which describes removal of microcapsules

from surface and warns that capsules not be

disturbed prior to formation of image,

unequivocally teaches absence of

permanently fixed microcapsules and

supports amended language of claims

requiring that microcapsules be ‘‘not

permanently fixed’’ to underlying surface,

and therefore meets description requirement

of 35 U.S.C. 112.). 61 See, e.g., In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452,

456–57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970)

(‘‘[W]here no explicit description of a generic

invention is to be found in the specification

* * * mention of representative compounds

may provide an implicit description upon

which to base generic claim language.’’); In

re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ

679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not

necessarily implicitly described by a genus

encompassing it and a species upon which it

reads). 62 See, e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,

745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950–51 (Fed. Cir.

1999) (‘‘To establish inherency, the extrinsic

evidence ‘‘must make clear that the missing

descriptive matter is necessarily present in

the thing described in the reference, and that

it would be so recognized by persons of

ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not

be established by probabilities or

possibilities. The mere fact that a certain

thing may result from a given set of

circumstances is not sufficient.’’’’) (citations

omitted). 63 When an explicit limitation in a claim

‘‘is not present in the written description

whose benefit is sought it must be shown that

a person of ordinary skill would have

understood, at the time the patent

application was filed, that the description

requires that limitation.’’ Hyatt v. Boone, 146

F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131

(Fed. Cir. 1998). 64 See, e.g., Johnson Worldwide Associates

Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d at 993, 50

USPQ2d at 1613; Gentry Gallery, Inc. v.

Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d at 1479, 45 USPQ2d

at 1503; Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159,

47 USPQ2d at 1833. 65 See, e.g., In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220,

224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). 66 Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at

97.67 See Rasmussen, 650 F.2d at 1214, 211

USPQ at 326. 68 See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1176, 37

USPQ2d 1578, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

[FR Doc. 01–323 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–U

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Revision of Currently Approved

Information Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Corporation for National and

Community Service

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Corporation for National

and Community Service (hereinafter

‘‘Corporation’’), as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, conducts a

preclearance consultation program to

provide the general public and Federal

agencies with an opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing collections of information in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

helps to ensure that requested data can

be provided in the desired format,

reporting burden (time and financial

resources) is minimized, collection

instruments are clearly understood, and

the impact of collection requirement on

respondents can be properly assessed.

Currently, the Corporation is

soliciting comments concerning the

proposed revision of its Voucher and

Payment Request Form (OMB #3045–

0014).

Copies of the forms can be obtained

by contacting the office listed below in

the address section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

ADDRESSES section by March 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Levon

Buller, National Service Trust,

Corporation for National and

Community Service, 1201 New York

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20525.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Levon Buller, (202) 606–5000, ext. 383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Corporation is particularly interested in

comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Corporation, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

Background

The Corporation supports programs

that provide opportunities for

individuals who want to become

involved in national service. The service

opportunities cover a wide range of

activities over varying periods of time.

Upon successfully completing an

agreed-upon term of service in an

approved AmeriCorps program, a

national service participant—an

AmeriCorps member—receives an

‘‘education award’’. This award is an

amount of money set aside in the

member’s name in the National Service

Trust Fund. This education award can

be used to make payments towards

qualified student loan or pay for

educational expenses at qualified postsecondary institutions and approved

school-to-work opportunities programs.

Members have seven years in which to

draw against any unused balance.

The National Service Trust is the

office within the Corporation that

administers the education award

1112 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices

program. This involves tracking the

service for all AmeriCorps members,

ensuring that certain requirements of

the Corporation’s enabling legislation

are met, and processing school and loan

payments that the members authorize.

Current Action

After an AmeriCorps member

completes a period of national service,

the individual receives an education

award that can be used to pay against

qualified student loans or pay for

current post secondary educational

expenses. The Voucher and Payment

Request Form is the document that a

member uses to access his or her

account in the National Service Trust.

The form serves three purposes: (1)

The AmeriCorps member uses it to

request and authorize a specific

payment to be made from his or her

account, (2) the school or loan company

uses it to indicate the amount for which

the individual is eligible, and (3) the

school or loan company and member

both certify that the payment meets

various legislative requirements. When

the Corporation receives a voucher, it is

processed and the U.S. Treasury issues

a payment to the loan holder or school

on behalf of the AmeriCorps member.

The form was first designed and some

variation of it has been in use since the

summer of 1994. The proposed

revisions are being made to clarify

certain sections of the existing form.

The voucher will include boxes for

some of the responses, because the

Corporation intends to scan the images

and automatically retrieve some of the

information. Currently, all of the

information from the form is entered

into the Corporation’s database by hand.

Automating part of this process should

greatly decrease the processing time and

decrease the number of payment errors.

Type of Review: Renewal.

Agency: Corporation for National and

Community Service.

Title: Voucher and Payment Request

Form.

OMB Number: 3045–0014.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Individuals who have

completed a term of national service

who wish to access their education

awards.

Total Respondents: 55,000 responses

annually (estimated annual average over

the next three years).

Frequency: Experience has shown that

some members may not ever use the

education award and others use it

several times a year.

Average Time Per Response: Total of

5 minutes (one half minute for the

AmeriCorps member’s section and 41⁄2

minutes for the school or lender).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,583

hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): None.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: January 2, 2001.

Levon L. Buller,

Acting Director, National Service Trust.

[FR Doc. 01–371 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6050–28–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title, Form, and OMB Number:

Personnel Security Clearance Change

Notification; DISCO Form 562; OMB

Number 0704–[To Be Determined].

Type of Request: New Collection.

Number of Respondents: 11,290.

Responses per Respondent: 20.

Annual Responses: 225,800.

Average Burden Per Response: 12

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 45,160.

Needs and Uses: The DISCO Form

562 is used by contractors participating

in the National Industrial Security

Program to report various changes in

employee personnel clearance status or

identification information. The

execution of the form is a factor in

making a determination as to whether a

contractor employee is eligible to have

a security clearance.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C.

Springer.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Springer at the Office of

Management and Budget, Desk Officer

for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: December 27, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01–283 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title, Form Number, and OMB

Number: Description of Vessels,

Description of Operations; ENG Form

3931, 3932; OMB Number 0710–0009.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 2,500.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 2,500.

Average Burden Per Response: 48

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

Needs and Uses: The data collected

provide information on vessel operators

and their American Flag vessels

operating or available for operation on

the inland waterways of the United

States in the transportation of freight

and passengers. The information

provides accurate U.S. Flag fleet

statistics for use by the Army Corps of

Engineers and other agencies, such as

the U.S. Coast Guard and Federal and

State agencies involved in

transportation.

Affected Public: Business or Other

For-Profit.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Jim Laity.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Laity at the Office of Management

and Budget, Desk Officer for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Room 10202,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert

Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should