Ex Parte Gartstein et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 20, 2005

10078043 (B.P.A.I. May. 20, 2005)

- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte VALDIMIR GARTSTEIN, FAIZ FEISAL SHERMAN,
YING XU, MILAN MARCEL JEVTITCH
and DONALD CARROLL ROE
______________

Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
_______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before KIMLIN, WARREN and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 1 through 7 and 9 through 13, and refusing to allow claim 8 as amended
subsequent to the final rejection, which are all of the claims in the application.1
Claims 1, 10 and 11 illustrate appellants’ invention of an apparatus and a method for
treating pathogen-based infections in a living organism, including acute otitis media in an
animal, and are representative of the claims on appeal:
1. An apparatus for meaningful suppression of the growth potential of a pathogen in-
vivo, said apparatus comprising an electromagnetic radiation source capable of providing broad-
spectrum electromagnetic radiation, wherein said broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation

1 Claims 14 through 20 also finally rejected were subsequently canceled.
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 2 -
includes wavelengths of from about 190 nm to about 1200 nm, said broad-spectrum
electromagnetic radiation having an intensity sufficient to achieve meaningful suppression in
said growth potential of said pathogen in-vivo and wherein at least part of said apparatus is
adapted for placement proximate to the in-vivo location of said pathogen, wherein said in-vivo
location of said pathogen is a plant or plant parts thereof.
10. A method for achieving the meaningful suppression of the growth potential of a
pathogen in a living organism comprising applying a broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation
from an apparatus according to Claim 11 to said living organism at the locus of said pathogen in
said living organism.
11. An apparatus for treatment of acute otitis media in an animal comprising an
electromagnetic radiation source capable of providing broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation,
wherein said broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation has wavelengths of from about 190 nm to
about 1200 nm, said broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation having an intensity sufficient to
achieve meaningful suppression in acute otitis media while minimizing erythema on the
tympanic membrane of said animal; wherein at least part of said apparatus is adapted for
placement proximate to said tympanic membrane of said animal.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Talmore et al. (Talmore) 5,344,433 Sep. 6, 1994
Eckhouse 5,720,772 Feb. 24, 1998
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Eckhouse, and appealed claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Eckhouse in view of Talmore.2
Appellants state that the appealed claims “stand or fall together” but argue the
patentability of claims 1, 10 and 11 (brief, e.g., pages 2, 3, 4 and 7). Thus, we decide this appeal
based on appealed claims 1 and 11 as representative of the first ground of rejection, and on
appealed claim 10 with respect to the second ground of rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (2003);
see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August
12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion

2 The examiner states in the answer (page 3) that the grounds of rejection are stated in the Office
action mailed December 30, 2003 (see pages 2-4).
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 3 -
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported finding advanced by the examiner that as a matter of fact, prima
facie, appealed claims 1 and 11 are anticipated by Eckhouse. In view of the established prima
facie case of anticipation, we again consider the record as a whole with respect to this ground of
rejection in light of appellants’ rebuttal arguments in the brief. See generally, In re Spada,
911 F.2d 705, 707 n.3, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 n.3. (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellants submit that the requirement of claim 1 that “at least part of said apparatus is
adapted for placement proximate to the in-vivo location of said pathogen, wherein said in-vivo
location of said pathogen is a plant or plant parts” is a functional limitation that must be
considered as limiting the structure of the claimed apparatus (brief, page 3). Appellants contend
that “[b]ecause the apparatus is adapted for placement in-vivo of a plant or proximate thereto,
there are structural attributes provided to the apparatus that one skilled in the art would
recognize” (id.). Thus, appellants argue that because Eckhouse is silent with respect to the use
of the device disclosed therein to treat a plant, it fails to teach every element of claim 1 (id., page
4).
In similar manner, appellants submit that claim 11 requires that “at least part of said
apparatus is adapted for placement proximate to said tympanic membrane of said animal” is a
functional limitation that limits the structure of the claimed apparatus, contending that
“[b]ecause the apparatus is adapted for placement proximate to said tympanic membrane, there
are structural attributes provided to the apparatus that one skilled in the art would recognize”
(id., pages 4-5). Appellants further point out that the language of claim 11 “implies that the
tympanic membrane is subjected to electromagnetic radiation of an intensity” such “that
erythema on the tympanic membrane is minimized,” and thus, the claimed “apparatus is
attributed with structural limitations which allow the tympanic membrane to be exposed to
electromagnetic radiation of some intensity” (id., page 5). Appellants thus argue that because
Eckhouse is silent as to the use of the device disclosed therein to treat the tympanic membrane, it
fails to teach every element of claim 11 (id., page 5).
In these respects, appellants contend “that the device in [Eckhouse] is not inherently
capable of being located in proximity to a tympanic membrane,” arguing that more than a
probability or possibility of such use must be shown to establish inherency, citing In re
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 4 -
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and Continental Can
Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (brief,
pages 5-6). Appellants point out that Eckhouse teaches the use of electromagnetic radiation for
the treatment of skin disorders and for several invasive procedures, but not the treatment of acute
otitis media or treatment proximate to the tympanic membrane, and argue that the reference thus
does not inherently teach all of the elements of claim 11 (id., pages 6-7).
In response, the examiner submits that while a functional limitation must be considered,
“there is nothing in the [subject limitation of claim 1] which implies any structure beyond a
delivery member which may be located near a plant,” arguing that “the Eckhouse delivery
member, which is located near skin, may inherently be located adjacent a plant” and pointing to
col. 8, ll. 46-55, of Eckhouse where “a lightweight delivery unit held in the desired location by
the physician” is taught (answer, pages 3-4). The examiner argues that “[s]uch a hand-held unit
is clearly capable of being located adjacent skin tissue, an ear (including the tympanic
membrane) or a plant” (id., page 4). The examiner points out that appellants have “failed to
establish why the Eckhouse devise is structurally incapable of being placed proximate a plant or
parts thereof” (id.).
With respect to claim 11, the examiner submits that “the handheld probe of Eckhouse,
which is placed at various locations on the skin to treat reasonably small areas, is inherently
capable of being located in proximity to a patient’s ear (i.e., in proximity to a tympanic
membrane),” and that the “claims fail to set forth any distinguishing features or elements which
would require the device to be located at a position (e.g., within the inner ear) not reachable by
any well-known hand held probe such as taught by Eckhouse” (id.). The examiner further
submits that while Eckhouse does not disclose treating acute otitis media or a device proximate
to the tympanic membrane, the reference teaches a device that “includes a light source which
provides the exact same wavelength and energy ranges for treating tissue” and “is inherently
capable of being located adjacent an ear and, therefore, in proximity to a tympanic membrane”
(id., pages 4-5). The examiner points out that appellants have “failed to establish why the
Eckhouse devise would be incapable of being located in proximity to a tympanic membrane of
an animal” (id., page 5).
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 5 -
We first interpret representative independent claims 1 and 11 by giving the terms thereof
the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the written description in appellants’
specification, including the drawings, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this
art, without reading into these claims any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the
specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). These claims
contain functional language in the preamble and in the body thereof in order to define certain
structure of the claimed apparatus, see generally, Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elect.
U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Stencel,
828 F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Echerd, 471 F.2d 632,
634-35, 176 USPQ 321, 322 (CCPA 1973); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64, 169 USPQ 563,
565-67 (CCPA 1971); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA
1971), and thus, this language must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in this respect
in light of the written description in the specification. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra; Stencel,
supra.
Claim 1 specifies that the claimed apparatus must perform the function of meaningfully
suppressing the growth potential of any pathogen in-vivo and comprises at least (1) any source of
broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation in wavelength falling within the stated range at an
intensity sufficient for performing said function, and (2) any structure which permits
“placement” of at least any part of the apparatus “proximate to the in-vivo location of said
pathogen” in and on any “plant or plant parts” in order to perform the function thereon. We
interpret the term “pathogen” to have its ordinary meaning of any agent that causes disease,3 and
indeed, appellants disclose that “the term ‘pathogen’ includes biological substances capable of
proliferating that causes a disease in an organism” (specification, page 7, ll. 16-25). The
preambular language does not specify an organism which is the in-vivo location of the pathogen,
but is it clear from the last clause of claim 1 that the organism is any plant or parts thereof.

3 See generally, The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 910 (Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982); Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary 861
(Boston, The Riverside Publishing Company. 1984).
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 6 -
Appellants define “the term ‘proximate’ [to mean] . . . some position that is in close
physical proximity, to the locus of the pathogen in the organism” (id., page 8, ll. 11-15). The
ordinary dictionary meaning of “proximate” is “[c]losely related in space, time or order; very
near,” while that of “proximity” is “[t]he state, quality, or fact of being near or next; closeness.”4
While appellants use the phrase “pathogen in the organism” in their definition of “proximate,”
we find that they define “the term in-vivo [to mean] . . . in the interior or inside of a living
organism . . . or on the exterior or outside of a living organism . . . .” (id., page 7, ll. 13-15).
Thus, the in-vivo location of the pathogen in claim 1 can be in the interior and/or on the exterior
of the plant or plant part. Therefore, we agree with the examiner’s interpretation that the
structure of the claimed apparatus encompassed by claim 1 is any structure which places any part
of the apparatus “proximate,” that is, “near,” the in-vivo location of the pathogen in or on any
plant or part thereof so that it can perform the specified function, and with appellants’ argument
that one skilled in the art would recognize such structure.
Claim 11 specifies that the claimed apparatus must perform the function of treating acute
otitis media in any animal and comprises at least (1) any source of broad-spectrum
electromagnetic radiation in wavelength falling within the stated range at an intensity sufficient
to “achieve meaningful suppression in acute otitis media” while minimizing erythema on the
tympanic membrane of said animal,” and (2) any structure which permits “placement” of at least
any part of the apparatus “proximate to said tympanic membrane of said animal.” Appellants
disclose that “acute otitis media” is a form of “inner ear infections” in any mammal, but do not
identify a pathogen (specification, page 20, ll. 26-27). We note that “acute otitis media” is
generally defined as an infection involving the middle ear indicated by the presence of fluid
therein and can have the symptom, among others, of an inflamed tympanic membrane. See
generally, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 1006.5 The electromagnetic radiation must strike the

4 See generally, The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition 998; Webster’s II
New Riverside University Dictionary 948.
5 24th ed., Baltimore, Waverly Press, Inc. 1982.
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 7 -
tympanic membrane via the external acoustic meatus, and the intensity thereof must be such that
erythema6 of the tympanic membrane is minimized.
We found above that appellants have defined the term “proximate” to mean placement of
the apparatus “near” the locus of the pathogen in the organism. With respect to claim 11,
appellants disclose that with respect to “pathogens in the inner ear, placement proximate would
mean insertion into the ear in reasonable proximity to the pathogen in the inner ear, such as near
the tympanic membrane,” and disclose in specification Example 1 an apparatus that “contains a
tip or speculum for facilitating the application of the pulsed broad-spectrum electromagnetic
radiation, in this case pathogens located in the ear” (specification, page 8, ll. 12-15, and page 23,
ll. 3-5; see also page 20, ll. 18-21 and 24-27). We determine that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the language of claim 11 in light of the specification is that the claimed
apparatus has the structure such that the source of broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation is
focused on the tympanic membrane via the external acoustic meatus or auditory canal from any
position next to the auricle or external ear to a position within the external acoustic meatus or
auditory canal, that is, near the tympanic membrane, with respect to the ear of any animal. We
find no basis in either the language of claim 11 or in the written description of the specification
upon which to read into claim 11 the limitation of the structure of the apparatus of specification
Example 1. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra. Thus, we agree with appellants’ argument that one
skilled in this art would recognize structures that expose the tympanic membrane to
electromagnetic radiation of suitable intensity.
Turning now to Eckhouse, appellants do not dispute the examiner’s finding that the
reference discloses a broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation range that falls within and thus
anticipates the claimed range with respect to claims 1 and 11. Thus, the issue centers on whether
at least a part of the Eckhouse apparatus is inherently capable of placement proximate the in-vivo
location of a pathogen to focus electromagnetic radiation on that location in and on any plant or
plant part and on the tympanic membrane of any animal.
The examiner finds, and we agree, that Eckhouse discloses a handheld flash lamp, which

6 The term “erythema” is generally defined as an “[i]nflammatory redness of the skin.” See
generally, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 484.
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 8 -
we find can have the structure of Eckhouse FIG. 2 that includes iris 20 and other components
which “control the spectrum and the size of the exposed area,” with respect to the therapeutic
electromagnetic treatment of external skin disorders and certain disorders under the skin, as well
as certain invasive procedures (e.g., col. 5, l. 26, to col. 8, l. 62). We find that the exposure area
provided by such apparatus can be circular as well as rectangular and of different dimensions,
and can include an exposure area of small dimension, such as to treat warts which are well
known to be caused by viruses (e.g., col. 6, ll. 11-34, col. 8, ll. 22-23, and col. 18, l. 22). We
further find that Eckhouse discloses coupling the broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation to a
light guide, in order to couple the light to the treatment area, wherein the light guide may be
circular or rectangular to match the shape of the area to be treated (e.g., col. 8, l. 62, to col. 11,
l. 59).
It is well settled that in order for the examiner to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation, each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the claim,
must be found in a single prior art reference, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency. See generally, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677-78, 7 USPQ 1315,
1317 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, with respect to claim 1, we
find as a matter of fact, that one skilled in the art can place at least iris 20 of the handheld
flashlamp of Eckhouse proximate the in-vivo location of the pathogen on and in the plant or plant
part in the same manner as a physician would place this part of the flashlamp proximate the skin
of a patient, adjusting the exposure area, electromagnetic radiation and intensity within the area
and ranges taught by the reference. Thus, we agree with the examiner that the flashlamp
apparatus disclosed by Eckhouse inherently satisfies each and every element of the claimed
apparatus encompassed by claim 1, arranged as required by that claim, and that, therefore, the
burden rests with appellants to establish that the handheld flashlamp of Eckhouse is inherently
incapable of performing the function of meaningfully suppressing the growth potential of any
pathogen in-vivo specified in the claim. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.
With respect to claim 11, we find as a matter of fact, that one skilled in the art can place
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 9 -
at least iris 20 of the handheld flashlamp of Eckhouse proximate the tympanic membrane of an
animal affected by acute otitis media, because the exposure area can be adjusted by iris 20 for
the size of the external acoustic meatus or auditory canal and the tympanic membrane when this
part of the flashlamp is located at the auricle or external ear of an animal, and the
electromagnetic radiation and intensity can be adjusted within the ranges taught by the reference.
Indeed, there is no limitation on the size of the subject ear or any features thereof as it can be of
any animal, ear dimensions of the auricle or external ear and the external acoustic meatus or
auditory canal varying even within the same species. Thus, we agree with the examiner that the
flashlamp apparatus disclosed by Eckhouse inherently satisfies each and every element of the
claimed apparatus encompassed by claim 11, arranged as required by that claim. Therefore, the
burden rests with appellants to establish that the handheld flashlamp of Eckhouse is inherently
incapable of performing the function of treating acute otitis media in any animal as specified in
the claim. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432..
As the examiner points out, appellants have not carried the burden of establishing that the
at least a part of the handheld flashlamp of Eckhouse is incapable of placement proximate to the
in-vivo location of the pathogen in any plant or part thereof, or that at least a part of the
flashlamp is incapable of placement proximate to the tympanic membrane of any animal, and
thus incapable of performing the function specified in the claims. We find no evidence
supporting appellants’ contentions elsewhere in the record. See generally, In re Glass, 474 F.2d
1015, 1019, 176 USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973); Ludtke, 441 F.2d at 663-64, 169 USPQ at
565-67. Furthermore, we are not convinced by appellants’ argument that Eckhouse does not
serve as an anticipation because the reference is silent with respect to the use of the handheld
flashlamp to treat pathogens in-vivo in plants and plant parts, and acute otitis media in animals.
Indeed, on this record, appellants have merely identified a new intended function of treating
living pathogens in-vivo in organisms for the handheld flashlamps of Eckhouse disclosed to
perform the function of treating a living organism with broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation
for other purposes, which does not make Eckhouse’s handheld flashlamps again patentable. See
generally, Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477, 44 USPQ2d at 1431.
Accordingly, we have again considered the totality of the record before us, weighing all
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 10 -
of the evidence of anticipation found in Eckhouse with appellants’ countervailing arguments for
non-anticipation in the brief, and based thereon, conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 13 would have been anticipated as a matter of fact
under § 102(b).
Our review of the record on this appeal further leads us to agree with the supported
position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed method for achieving the
meaningful suppression of the growth potential of a pathogen in a living organism encompassed
by appealed claim 10 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Eckhouse and
Talmore to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. In view
of the established prima facie case of obviousness, we again consider the record as a whole with
respect to this ground of rejection in light of appellants’ rebuttal arguments in the brief. See
generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We determine that in giving the language thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the specification, claim 10 specifies a method comprising at least “applying a broad-
spectrum electromagnetic radiation from an apparatus according to Claim 11” to the locus of any
pathogen in any organism to achieve meaningful suppression of the growth potential of that
pathogen. Thus, the apparatus to be employed in the claimed method is defined in claim 11
which we have interpreted above. See Morris, supra; Zletz, supra.
Appellants submit that Eckhouse does not disclose the apparatus and that Talmore “fails
to teach or suggest the claim limitations which distinguish the claimed invention of claim 11
over” Eckhouse (brief, page 7). Appellants admit that Talmore “may teach some of the claim
limitations that [Eckhouse] is lacking, i.e., the treatment of pathogens and fungi” (id.). The
examiner responds that “Talmore was cited as a teaching of specifically treating skin pathogens
with light energy,” with the combined teachings suggesting that Eckhouse’s apparatus would
“inherently treat any pathogens located on the tissue” (answer, pages 6-7).
We find no argument by appellants with respect to claim 10 which further addresses
whether Eckhouse’s handheld flashlamp satisfies all of the limitations of claim 11, and thus, on
this record, we are in agreement with the examiner’s position in the here considered ground of
rejection. We are reinforced in our view by our finding above of the disclosure of the treatment
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 11 -
of warts in Eckhouse which, on this record, would reasonably appear to involve the meaningful
suppression of the growth potential of the causal virus at its locus on and in the living organism,
and thus the claimed method encompassed by appealed claims 10 reasonably appears to be
identical to the method of treating warts in Eckhouse. See generally, In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed Cir. 1991) (citing In re Fracalossi,
681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982) ( “anticipation is the ultimate of
obviousness”); see also Spada, 911 F.2d at 708-09, 15 USPQ2d at 1657-58 (“The Board held
that the compositions claimed by Spada ‘appear to be identical’ to those described by Smith.
While Spada criticizes the usage of the word ‘appear,’ we think that it was reasonable for the
PTO to infer that the polymerization by both Smith and Spada of identical monomers, employing
the same or similar polymerization techniques, would produce polymers having the identical
composition.”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Eckhouse and Talmore
with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that
the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claim 10 would have been obvious as a matter
of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.

Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 12 -
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ROMULO H. DELMENDO )
Administrative Patent Judge )

The Procter & Gamble Company
Intellectual Property Division
Winton Hill Technology Center – Box 161
6110 Center Hill Avenue
Appeal No. 2005-1117
Application 10/078,043
- 13 -
Cincinnati, OH 45224