Ex Parte 6813868 et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 17, 201090007816 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte BAXA CORPORATION, Appellant ____________ Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B21 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Decided: March 18, 2010 ____________ Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The patent under reexamination (hereinafter the “‘868 Patentâ€) issued to Brian Eugene Baldwin, Robert Eugene Mancuso, II, and Jon Paul Page on November 9, 2004 from Application 09/928,007 filed August 10, 2001. Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 2 Baxa Corporation, the owner of the patent under reexamination,2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a final rejection of claims 1-25 and 28-363 (Appeal Brief filed February 4, 2008, hereinafter “Br.,†at 12; Final Office Action mailed October 2, 2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This reexamination proceeding arose from a third-party request for ex parte reexamination filed by David Leason of Darby & Darby, P.C., New York, New York, acting on behalf of ForHealth Technologies, Inc. (“ForHealthâ€). We have been informed that the ‘868 Patent is the subject of a patent infringement action styled as Baxa Corp. v. ForHealth Technologies, Inc., Case No. 6:06-cv-0353 (M.D. Fla.) (Br. 5). According to Appellant, the district court ordered a stay on May 5, 2006 pending the outcome of the current reexamination proceeding (Br. 5). The ‘868 Patent states that the invention relates to an apparatus for automated syringe handling operations, such as syringe filling, labeling, and capping operations (col. 1, ll. 12-15). 2 See Title Report entered November 28, 2005. 3 Claims 26 and 27 have been determined to be patentable over the cited prior art references (Final Office Action, PTOL-466). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 3 Claims 1, 29, 31, and 35 on appeal read as follows: 1. An apparatus adapted for automated handling, comprising: a plurality of syringe bodies, each comprising a barrel having a dispensing end and an opposing end, a plunger slidably disposed in the opposing end of the barrel, and a cap removably and replacably [sic] disposed on the dispensing end of the barrel, wherein a clean, contained volume is defined within the barrel between the plunger and the cap and wherein the dispensing end of the barrel includes a fluid port and an outer flange and wherein said cap includes an outer member matingly positionable about the outer flange of the barrel and either an inner member positionable about or an inner member positionable within the fluid port of the barrel; and, a flexible belt fixedly attached to each barrel of said plurality of syringe bodies, wherein said plurality of syringe bodies are positionable in a predetermined orientation and at least one of said dispensing end and said opposing end of each said barrel of said plurality of syringe bodies is accessible. 29. An apparatus adapted for automated handling, comprising: a plurality of syringe bodies each comprising a barrel having a dispensing end and an opposing end and wherein the dispensing end of the barrel includes a fluid port and an outer flange, a cap removably and replacably [sic] disposed on the dispensing end of the barrel, and a plunger slidably disposed in the opposing end of the barrel, wherein for each of said plurality of syringe bodies a clean, contained volume is defined within said barrel between the plunger and cap, and wherein said cap includes an outer member matingly positionable about the outer flange of the barrel and either an inner member positionable about or an inner member positionable within the fluid port of the barrel; and, Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 4 a flexible belt fixedly attached to each said barrel of said plurality of syringe bodies, wherein said plurality of syringe bodies are positionable in a predetermined orientation and at least one end of each said barrel of said plurality of syringe bodies is accessible, wherein said belt is of a predetermined length between adjacent ones of said plurality of syringe bodies, said predetermined length being sufficient to define label flaps upon severance of the belt between said adjacent ones of the plurality of syringe bodies and wherein at least one surface of each said predetermined length of said belt is adapted for printing contents-related information thereon. 31. An apparatus as recited in Claim 29, wherein said belt comprises: opposing layers adjoined in face-to-face relation between adjacent ones of said plurality of syringe bodies and wrapped about opposing sides of the barrels of each of said plurality of syringe bodies. 35. An apparatus as recited in Claim 31, wherein said at least one surface of each said predetermined length of said belt is defined by a sheet label affixed to said belt. (Claims App’x A.) The Examiner relied upon the following as evidence of unpatentability (Examiner’s Answer mailed September 26, 2008, hereinafter “Ans.,†3-15): Rycroft 4,865,592 Sept. 12, 1989 Haber 5,356,393 Oct. 18, 1994 Ortiz 5,884,457 Mar. 23, 1999 Timko EP 0 935 969 A2 Aug. 18, 1999 Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 5 The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 and 28-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: I. Claims 1-23, 28-34, and 36 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ortiz, Timko, and Rycroft (Ans. 3-14); and II. Claims 24, 25, and 35 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ortiz, Timko, Rycroft, and Haber (Ans. 14-15). ISSUES Rejection I The Examiner found that Ortiz describes an automated syringe handling apparatus having all the elements recited in claim 1 except for “a flexible belt fixedly attached to each said barrel of said plurality of syringe bodies†(Ans. 3-5). To resolve this difference, the Examiner relied on, inter alia, Timko, which was found to teach various advantages in using a flexible belt or strip that connects plural syringes together (id. at 5-6). According to the Examiner, these known advantages of a flexible belt or strip would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ortiz with Timko in the manner claimed in the ‘868 Patent (id. at 6). With respect to claim 29, which is argued separately, the Examiner found that the limitation “at least one surface of each said predetermined length of said belt is adapted for printing contents-related information thereon†reads on a surface that is capable of receiving a label (Ans. 26). Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s analysis is flawed because Ortiz teaches away from using a “flexible belt,†as recited in the claims. Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 6 Specifically, Appellant argues that because “significant forces†(rotational and vertical) are imparted on Ortiz’s syringes during processing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have dispensed with Ortiz’s “high strength feeding magazine 26†in favor of Timko’s flexible belt or strip (Br. 16-17, 20-21, 30). According to Appellant, “there would be no reasonable apparent reason to make the combination of Ortiz and Timko†(Br. 27). Appellant also contends that it is “impractical†to fill Timko’s syringes through the dispensing end and that the reference teaches away from “a cap removably and replacably [sic] disposed on the dispensing end of the barrel,†as required in the claims (Br. 17, 21). Appellant further contends that Timko would have discouraged “a clean, contained volume . . . within the barrel,†as recited in the claims, because the prior art syringe must remain plungerless to accommodate filling (Br. 22). With respect to claim 29, Appellant contends that the prior art flexible belt has not been shown to “be capable of being printed on†(Br. 47). Thus, the dispositive issues for Rejection I are: A. Did the Examiner articulate some reasoning with sufficient rational underpinnings to support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ortiz and Timko in the manner claimed (i.e., substitute Ortiz’s feeding magazine with Timko’s flexible belt to arrive at the claimed subject matter)? Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 7 B. Do the collective teachings of the prior art references describe “a cap removably and replacably disposed on the dispensing end of the barrel,†as recited in claim 1? C. Do the collective teachings of the prior art references describe “a clean, contained volume . . . defined within the barrel,†as recited in claim 1? D. Does Timko disclose a flexible belt which, upon severance of the belt between syringes, would provide label flaps, wherein at least one surface flap would be “adapted for printing contents-related information thereon,†as recited in claim 29? Rejection II The Examiner found that while Ortiz and Timko do not disclose the use of sheet labels having contents-related information, Haber would have suggested the use of such labels adjacent or between syringe bodies “for the purpose of identifying the contents in the syringes, thereby reducing the risk of patients receiving the wrong medication†(Ans. 14-15). According to the Examiner, “[t]he teaching of Haber . . . would sufficiently suggest providing labels between syringe bodies, as to make it obvious to do so between the syringe bodies of the art combination . . . .†(Ans. 27). Appellant contends that Haber’s label is not positioned on a belt that is “between each of said plurality of syringe bodies,†as recited in claim 24. (Br. 51.) Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 8 Thus, the dispositive issue is: E. Does Haber suggest the placement of labels with printed information on areas of the flexible belt adjacent to and between the syringe bodies? FINDINGS OF FACT (“FFâ€) 1. Figures 1 and 2 of the ‘868 Patent are reproduced below: Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 9 Figures 1 and 2 of the ‘868 Patent disclose a plurality of sterile capped syringes mounted in a flexible or pliable belt or band 30 for automated labeling and/or cap removal, fluid filling, and cap replacement, wherein the cap may be connected by a Luer lock (col. 3, ll. 1-2; col. 7, ll. 19-22; col. 7, l. 64 to col. 8, l. 12; col. 17, l. 65). 2. The ‘868 Patent discloses that the flexible belt 30 of Figure 2 may be formed by adhesively bonding two tape strips, which secure the plurality of syringes (col. 8, l. 58 to col. 9, l. 45). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 10 3. The ‘868 Patent Specification states (col. 3, ll. 5-10; italics added): [I]t is advantageous for the belt to be of a predetermined length between adjacent ones of the plurality of syringe bodies, such predetermined length defining belt segments that are sufficient for the placement of contents information thereupon (e.g. via the application of a label thereto or direct printing thereon). 4. Ortiz’s Figures 4C, 5, 6, and 7C are reproduced below: Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 11 Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 12 Ortiz’s Figures 4C, 5, 6, and 7C collectively disclose an apparatus for automated handling of sterile delivery devices comprising: syringes 12 complete with a hollow barrel 14, piston plungers, dispensing ends, and a tip 22 (e.g., friction- fit)/cap 88 complementarily sized to seal dispensing nozzle 16 upon filling of the syringe using fluid fillings station 66 (part of filling machine 10, not shown); and a feeding magazine 26 for holding syringes 12 while preventing their rotation (col. 3, l. 49 to col. 4, l. 22; col. 5, ll. 21-28; col. 5, l. 43 to col. 6, l. 59). 5. Ortiz teaches that the prior art disclosure “is not limited to the use of a feeding magazine 26†but that the syringes “can be carried, transported and supported on the sterile delivery device filling machine 10 in any number of manners . . . .†(col. 6, l. 67 to col. 7, l. 5). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 13 6. According to Ortiz, “it is preferred that the feeding magazine be constructed of a high-strength, lightweight material, such as a polymeric material†and that “[p]ortions of the feeding magazine could be constructed of other high-strength, lightweight materials . . . .†(col. 7, ll. 6-11; emphasis added). 7. Timko teaches a flexible strip (i.e., belt) that interconnects and maintains a plurality of syringes “in a selected alignment for efficient and easy handling during packaging and syringe-filling processes†(col. 2, ll. 10-14). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 14 8. Timko’s Figures 1-4 are reproduced below: Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 15 Timko’s Figures 1-4 collectively disclose an apparatus for packaging and handling syringes during manufacturing and pharmaceutical filling operations, the apparatus comprising: a continuous flexible strip (i.e., belt) 40 for holding syringes 22, the syringe 22 including a barrel portion 24 and a needle cover 32 on a dispending end (col. 2, l. 55 to col. 3, l. 2; col. 3, ll. 18- 30). 9. Timko teaches that the embodiment of Figure 3 includes a supporting strip 40’ obtained by snap-fitting two strips 50 and 52, which are made from the same substantially flexible materials, preferably plastic (col. 4, ll. 3-9). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 16 10. According to Timko, “[t]he embodiment of Figure 3 has the advantage of being useable with a large variety of syringes 22†and “also provides a somewhat more secure connection between the supporting strip 40’ and the syringes 22 compared to the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2†(col. 4, ll. 24-30). 11. Timko states that Figure 4 is the most preferred embodiment, where two flexible plastic strips 78 and 80 are bonded together (either with an adhesive or by melt fusion) to secure the syringes (col. 4, l. 35 to col. 5, l. 7). 12. Timko teaches that “placing the supporting strip about barrel portion 24 is especially advantageous because it provides a more secure connection†(col. 5, ll. 45-47). 13. Timko further states: “Under most circumstances, the syringes 22 preferably are removed from the supporting strip without the use of any external tools†(col. 5, ll. 54-56). 14. Timko teaches numerous advantages in using the flexible strip or belt, as follows (col. 6, l. 31 to col. 7, l. 7; italics added): Once a syringe assembly 20 is completed it provides the advantage of being readily usable in a pre-filling operation. For example, high-speed pharmaceutical linear filling systems can readily receive an assembly 20 of a plurality of syringes 22. Further, the preselected relative alignment of the syringes 22 leaves them well suited for oriented presentation into the pre-filling system. Further, the syringes 22 can be sterilized in large quantities after they have been assembled into the syringe assemblies 20. Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 17 Another advantage to the assembly 20 is its ready usefulness for packaging a large number of syringes 22 for shipment or handling. Figure 5 illustrates how a first syringe assembly 100 can be nested together with a second syringe assembly 102 . . . . Figure 6 illustrates a preferred orientation of the two assemblies 100 and 102 within a package 104. The continuous, flexible support strip allows a large number of syringes to be placed with the package 104 in a folded pattern. The folded pattern 106 of Figure 6 is preferred generally S- shaped. This allows for easy packaging that minimizes the amount of bulk packaging material that needs to be used in handling a large number of syringes 22. The stability of the alignment of the syringes provided by the supporting strip 40 protects the syringes under most circumstances and reduces the mount [sic] of packaging material required. Further, the continuous supporting strip makes it easy for a selected amount of syringes 22 to be removed from a package without disturbing the entire arrangement of syringes on a repeated basis. Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 18 15. Haber’s Figure 9 is reproduced below: Haber’s Figure 9 depicts a syringe assembly including syringe 2c and plunger 14c and an adhesive label 114 with indicia affixed adjacent or near the syringe body (col. 6, ll. 3-18; col. 3, ll. 59-63). PRINCIPLES OF LAW “During reexamination, as with original examination, the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification . . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.†In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 19 “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.†KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). ANALYSIS I. Because Rycroft is cumulative to Timko, we focus on the Examiner’s combination of Ortiz with Timko. Appellant does not specifically refute the Examiner’s findings that Ortiz describes an apparatus for automated, sterile handling of a plurality of syringes, wherein the apparatus includes: a plurality of syringes 12 having hollow barrels 14, plungers 18, a friction-fit or Luer lock (i.e., removable and replaceable) tip 22 complementarily sized to seal tip removing section (i.e., dispensing nozzle) 16 (Ans. 3-5, 16; Br. 15-17, 20-21; FF 4-6). Nor does Appellant identify any error in the Examiner’s finding that the dispensing end of Ortiz’s syringe necessarily includes an inner fluid port and an outer flange to accommodate a Luer lock connection (Ans. 5; Br. 15-17, 20-21). Furthermore, it is undisputed that Timko describes a “flexible belt,†as recited in claim 1 (Br. 17; FF 7-14). Rather, Appellant’s position is that the Examiner’s proposed combination of references fails because Ortiz teaches away by discouraging the use of a flexible belt through the disclosure of the need for a high- strength feeding magazine 26 for rotational and vertical locking of the Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 20 syringes during filling (Br. 20-21). Specifically, Appellant asserts that Ortiz’s cap removing, fluid filling, and sealing operations impart “significant forces†on the syringes (Br. 17). Furthermore, Appellant argues that “no reason whatsoever was given by the Examiner for combining the post- processing filled syringes of Ortiz with the flexible belt of Timko†(Br. 25). We disagree. As pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Timko teaches a myriad of advantages in using a flexible belt, such as the characteristic of being well-suited for oriented presentation to a pre-filling system and/or the ability to provide syringes in a nested package configuration (FF 7, 14). These advantages constitute ample reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ortiz and Timko in the manner claimed in the ‘868 Patent. As to the argument that Ortiz discourages a flexible belt, contrary to Appellant’s belief, Ortiz does not say that a flexible belt would be unsuitable for the tip removing, fluid filling, and sealing operations, although the feeding magazine would appear to hold the syringes in rotationally and vertically locked positions (FF 4-6). Indeed, as correctly found by the Examiner (Ans. 15), Ortiz does not limit the device for consolidating and feeding the syringes in any way, much less discourage the use of a flexible belt (FF 5). Rather, Ortiz merely describes an implementation that differs from the flexible belt implementation, and thus, does not teach away from the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Timko, on the other hand, explicitly teaches that a flexible belt allows a plurality of syringes to be maintained “in a selected alignment for efficient and easy handling during packaging and syringe-filling processes†(FF 7). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 21 In addition, Timko teaches that the flexible belt may secure the syringes by snap-fitting, adhesively bonding, or melt fusing two flexible strips, thus resulting in a secure connection (FF 8-12). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that such a secure connection would sufficiently counteract the nominal rotational and/or vertical forces that may act on the syringe during the filling operation. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“For obviousness under §103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.â€). In this case, Appellant has failed to direct us to any evidence or persuasive technical reasoning why Timko’s flexible belt would be incapable of withstanding the forces required to process Ortiz’s syringes. That failure is not surprising because Timko’s flexible belt is indistinguishable from that described and claimed in the ‘868 Patent (FF 1-2, 7-14). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton but a person with ordinary creativity and full knowledge of the prior art. We find that such a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in selecting appropriate polymeric materials that have the right balance of properties (flexibility, rigidity, and strength) to make the combination work. KSR, 55 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.â€); Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 335 (1945) (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.â€); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 22 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“KSR expanded the sources of information for a properly flexible obviousness inquiry to include . . . the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.â€). Equally unavailing are Appellant’s arguments that focus on the differences between the claimed subject matter and Timko’s apparatus. For example, Appellant argues that it is impractical to fill Timko’s syringes through their dispensing ends, that Timko teaches away from a removable and replaceable cap, and that Timko teaches away from a “clean, contained volume†within the syringe because a plunger is not shown (Br. 17, 21-22). But these arguments fail to take into account that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the collective teachings of the prior art references. The Examiner has relied on the teachings of Ortiz for these limitations (FF 4-6). In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of prior art references). As to separately argued claim 29, the claim recites the limitation “wherein at least one surface of each said predetermined length of said belt is adapted for printing contents-related information thereon.†The Examiner has construed this limitation to read on a predetermined length of belt that can accommodate a label of any size (Ans. 26). Appellant, on the other hand, appears to be contending that the surface of the belt must be capable of receiving direct printing thereon (Br. 47). Again, we agree with the Examiner. The Specification of the ‘868 Patent describes the use of labels and direct printing as alternative embodiments of the invention in which printed contents information is Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 23 provided (FF 3). While Patentees are free to claim less than what they disclose in the Specification, claim 29 does not limit the claimed subject matter to “direct printing.†Indeed, a cursory review of claim 35 (which further limits claim 29 through intervening claim 31) confirms that the label embodiment is in fact within the scope of claim 29. For these reasons, we detect no basis upon which to reverse the Examiner’s rejection. II. We are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s analysis and conclusion (Ans. 14-15). Haber teaches the concept of affixing a label near or adjacent a syringe to convey information (FF 15). Given that teaching, the placement of a label on any available space near or adjacent the syringes, including spaces between the syringes on the flexible belt, would have been within the ordinary skill of a person skilled in the art. In this case, the specific location of the labels with indicia has not been shown to unexpectedly affect the characteristics or operation of the claimed apparatus in any way. For these reasons, we also uphold Rejection II. CONCLUSION On this record, we find that: the Examiner articulated some reasoning with sufficient rational underpinnings to support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 24 art would have combined the teachings of Ortiz and Timko in the manner claimed; the collective teachings of the prior art references describe “a cap removably and replacably disposed on the dispensing end of the barrel,†as recited in claim 1; the collective teachings of the prior art references describe “a clean, contained volume . . . defined within the barrel,†as recited in claim 1; Timko discloses a flexible belt which, upon severance of the belt between syringes, would provide label flaps, wherein at least one surface flaps would be “adapted for printing contents-related information thereon,†as recited in claim 29; and Haber suggests the placement of labels with printed information on areas of the flexible belt adjacent and between the syringe bodies. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject: I. Claims 1-23, 28-34, and 36 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ortiz, Timko, and Rycroft; and II. Claims 24, 25, and 35 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Ortiz, Timko, Rycroft, and Haber, is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2009-010949 Reexamination Control 90/007,816 Patent 6,813,868 B2 25 AFFIRMED bim FOR PATENT OWNER: MARSH FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE, LLP 3151 S. VAUGHN WAY, SUITE 411 AURORA, CO 80014 FOR THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: DAVID LEASON, ESQ. DARBY & DARBY, P.C. P.O. BOX 5257 NEW YORK, NY 10150 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation