Ex Parte Hains

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2013

11727506 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES M. HAINS
____________

Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,5061
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
half tone screen having a square shift super cell. The Examiner has rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

1 Appellant states that the Real Party in Interest is Xerox Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3-20, and 23-29 are on appeal, and can be found in the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claims 1, 9, and 20 are illustrative of
the claims on appeal, and read as follows:
1. A method for designing a halftone screen having a square
zero-shift halftone supercell, comprising:
selecting a desired length for a first side of a pair of sides
of a non-square supercell;
selecting a length for a second side of the pair of sides of
the non-square supercell;
determining an integer number of centers within the
square zero-shift halftone supercell based on the side lengths of
the first and second sides of the non-square supercell;
determining an angle between the first frame of reference
in which the non-square supercell lies and a second frame of
reference in which the square zero-shift halftone supercell lies
based on the selected lengths of the first and second sides of the
non-square supercell;
selecting a diagonal for the non-square supercell in the
first frame of reference that is equal in length to the diagonal of
a square supercell in the second frame of reference;
resolving the size of the square zero-shift supercell based
on the selected desired length for the first side, the selected
length for the second side, the determined integer number of
centers, the determined angle and the selected diagonal; and
generating a halftone screen image on an image forming
device with square zero-shift halftone supercells of the resolved
size.

9. A square zero-shift supercell designing system usable in
designing a halftone screen having a square zero-shift halftone
supercell, comprising:
at least one input device usable to input data defining a
desired angle between a first frame of reference in which a non-
square supercell lies and a second frame of reference in which
the square zero-shift halftone supercell lies and a desired length
for a first side of a pair of sides of the non-square supercell in
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

3
the first frame of reference;
a first nominal side length determining device that
determines, based on the desired angle and the desired length of
the first side, a first nominal side length of a second side of the
pair of sides of the non-square supercell;
an actual side length selecting device that selects, based
on the first nominal side length, an actual side length of the
second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell; and
a center number determining device that determines an
integer number of centers within the square zero-shift halftone
supercell based at least one of the first nominal side length and
the actual side length of the of the non-square supercell.

20. A square zero-shift supercell designing system,
comprising:
an angle determining device;
a center number determining device; and
at least one input device usable to input data defining a
desired length for a first side and a second side of a pair of sides
of a non-square supercell,
wherein the angle determining device determines an
angle between a first frame of reference and a second frame of
reference based on the input lengths for the first and second
sides of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell.
The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows: 2
I. claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crounse3 in view of well-known prior art
Thales’ theorem;4
II. claims 20 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crounse in view of Oide;5

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (Ans. 3).
3 Kenneth R. Crounse, US 2003/0107768 Al, published June 12, 2003.
4 Wikipedia: Thales’ theorem a copy was attached to the Answer (Ans. 36).
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

4
III. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Crounse in view of well-known prior art Thales’ theorem and
further in view of Holladay.6

I. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse and Thales’ Theorem
The Examiner takes the position that Crounse disclosed “a method for
designing a halftone screen having a square zero-shift halftone supercell”
(Ans. 5). The Examiner looks to Thales’ theorem to explain the relationship
between the diagonal of a square and the diagonal of a rectangle.
Specifically,
the diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square, or
the non-square. Base[d] on the inscribed angle theorem, a
circle can be defined and one square and many non-squares can
be constructed within the defined circle, and these non-squares
and the square share the same diameter, or diagonal. Therefore,
the length of the diameter, or the hypotenuse of the right angle
triangles is the same for both of the isosceles and non-isosceles
triangles. Thus, the size of the square zero-shift (share the same
common point with a non-square) can be easily defined.
(Id. at 7.) The Examiner acknowledges that:
Crounse dose [sic] not disclose selecting a diagonal for the non-
square supercell in the first frame of reference that is equal in
length to the diagonal of a square supercell in the second frame
of reference; resolving the size of the square zero-shift supercell
based on the selected desired length for the first side, the
selected length for the second side.
(Id. at 6.) The Examiner, never the less, concludes that
it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to
modify Crounse by applying the inscribed angle theorem

5 Sakuji Oide et al., US 5,052,116, issued Oct. 1, 1991.
6 Thomas M. Holladay, US 4,149,194, issued Apr. 10, 1979.
App
App

(Id. a
supp
Thal
Find

conc
facts
emb
(Cro
eal 2011-0
lication 11
discusse
a diagon
in the fir
to the di
in the se
the circl
therefore
been to i
the area
size also
halftone
predictab
t 8.)
The issu
ort the Ex
es’ theorem

ings of Fa
FF1. W
erning the
are repeat
FF2. Fi
odiment of
unse 4: ¶ 0
05865
/727,506
d in constr
al (the dia
st frame o
agonal (th
cond fram
e diamete
resolved
mprove th
size of a
determin
dot frequ
le result.
e is: Does
aminer’s c
renders
ct
e adopt th
scope and
ed for refe
g. 2 of Cro
a rational
025.)
ucting hal
meter of a
f referenc
e same cir
e of refere
r), and th
. The mo
e halftone
square and
es the num
ency for i
the prepon
onclusion
the claims
e Examine
content o
rence con
unse, repr
tangent su
5
ftone scre
circle) for
e (in X-ax
cle diame
nce (X’- a
e size of
tivation fo
screen co
or a non
ber of ha
mage repr
derance o
that the co
obvious?
r’s finding
f the prior
venience.
oduced be
per cell, h
en superce
the non-s
is) that is
ter) of a s
xis, rotate
the squa
r doing s
nstruction
-square, be
lftone dot
oduction
f the evide
mbination
s, analysi
art (Ans. 5
low, discl
aving ten
lls that ha
quare supe
equal in le
quare supe
d at one en
re superce
o would
for contro
cause the
centers, o
quality, w
nce of rec
of Croun
s, and con
-43). The
osed “an
half tone d

ving
rcell
ngth
rcell
d of
ll is
have
lling
area
r the
ith a
ord
se and
clusions
following
ots.”

App
App

(Cro
(Id. a
eal 2011-0
lication 11
R
Delabast
by a tile
in a num
defining
screen is
halftone
“number
microdo
“number
unse 4: ¶ 0
FF3. W
the supe
the supe
microdo
value in
generate
A and B
A2+B2=
t ¶ 0042.)
FF4. Cr
05865
/727,506
eferring to
ita ‘599),
size TS, in
ber of m
the geom
given by
dots 22
_of_dots,”
ts contain
_of_rels”
040.)
ith referen
rcell has a
rcell conta
t within th
the thresh
d for the s
, the numb
10.

ounse Fig
FIG. 2 (a
such a su
dicating t
icrodots,
etry of the
the arctan
in the su
and is
ed in th
and is equ
ce to Fig 2
size of tw
ins “numb
e superce
old matrix
upercell 2
er of half
8 shows:
6
nd as exp
percell 21
he linear
and two i
halftone
gent of A
percell 2
(A2+B2).
e superce
al to TS*T
above, C
elve mic
er_of_rel
ll is-assoc
. As such,
1. As fro
tone dots
lained in f
, or tile, i
size of the
nteger va
screen. T
/B. The t
1 is desi
The tot
ll 21 is
S.
rounse pro
rodots (TS
s”=144 m
iated with
144 thres
m the valu
in the sup
urther det
s characte
tile expre
lues A an
he angle o
otal numb
gnated by
al numbe
designated
vides that
=12) and
icrodots.
one thres
hold value
es selecte
ercell equa
ail in
rized
ssed
d B,
f the
er of
the
r of
by

thus
Each
hold
s are
d for
ls to

Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

7
[I]n a device according to FIG. 8 for converting a continuous
tone image into a halftone image, by combining the threshold
values with the contone pixel values of the continuous tone
image, and marking a microdot on a film or printing plate as a
result of the combination or comparison.
(Id. at 7: ¶ 0081; Ans. 11) (emphasis added).

Analysis
Claim 1
Appellant contends that taking Official Notice of a mathematical
theorem is without merit (App. Br. 12).
As noted by Appellant, § MPEP 2144.03, citing In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d
1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970), states that “notice of facts beyond the record
which may be taken by the examiner must be ‘capable of such instant and
unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute’ (citing In re Knapp
Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230 . . . (CCPA 1961)).” (See Reply Br. 3-4; see
also Appeal Br. 12). Appellant contends that “insufficient documentary
evidence is relied upon to properly apply Official Notice” (Reply Br. 4).
We are not persuaded; we agree with the Examiner’s position is that
Thales’ theorem is elementary geometry (Ans. 4) and would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it is noted that the Examiner
provided a copy of the Wikipedia entry defining the theorem (id. at 36).
Moreover, as stated in MPEP § 2144.03(C), “[t]o adequately traverse such a
finding [of Official Notice], an applicant must specifically point out the
supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why
the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known
in the art.” We find that Appellant has not adequately traversed that Thales’
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

8
theorem is not well-known and Appellant has not adequately explained any
errors in the Examiner’s application of Thales’ theorem as applied to the
teachings of Crounse.
Appellant contends that “a simple understanding of a mathematical
relationship cannot be used to solve a specific problem in the prior art when
the results of the application of the mathematical relationship were clearly
unforeseeable.” (Reply Br. 4, see also Appeal Br. 12).
We are not persuaded. We adopt the fact finding, analysis, and
conclusions of the Examiner (FF1). As identified by the Examiner,
Crounse’s non-square supercell comprises sides A=1 and B=3 (Ans. 5; FF2).
As recognized by Crounse, incorporating Delabastia,7 the angle of the screen
is given by the arctanget A/B. (FF2). According to the Examiner “the
diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square, or the non-square”
(Ans. 7). Thales’ theorem states that “‘any angle inscribed in a semicircle is
a right angle’, i.e. the triangle is a right triangle if the hypotenuse of a
triangle is the diameter of a circle, and many right triangles which use the
diameter as their hypotenuse side can be constructed along the semicircle
arc” (Ans. 12-13). The application of this theorem is illustrated in Figure 15
of Delabastita, reproduced below:

7 Paul A. Delabastita, US 5,155,599, issued Oct. 13, 1992.
App
App

Figu
and 7
53-5
same
non-
shift
non-
Add
supe

discl
of re
seco
mean
comb
one o
as th
Co.,
eal 2011-0
lication 11
re 15 show
5 degree
5). Fig. 15
hypotenu
square sup
halftone s
square and
itionally, C
r cell base
Even tho
ose selecti
ference th
nd frame o
that the c
ination th
f ordinary
e rejection
Inc., 800 F
05865
/727,506
s a ration
screens ha
shows th
se. We, th
ercell cell
uper cell h
the squar
rounse tea
d on value
ugh the E
ng a diago
at is equal
f referenc
ombinatio
at forms th
skill. Ap
is based o
.2d 1091,
al tangent
ving the sa
at the 15, 4
erefore, a
can be co
aving a co
e super ce
ches deter
s A and B
xaminer ac
nal for the
in length t
e” (Ans. 6
n of Croun
e basis of
pellant err
n a combi
1097 (Fed
9
supercell w
me ‘tile si
5, and 75
gree with t
nstructed i
mmon po
ll.” (Ans.
mining th
(FFs 2 &
knowledg
non-squa
o the diag
; see also F
se with T
the reject
s in attack
nation of r
. Cir. 198

ith an “ov
ze’” (Dela
degree tri
he Examin
n relations
int for both
5-6) (emp
e number
3; see also
ed that “C
re superce
onal of a s
inal Rej.
hales’ theo
ion, would
ing the ref
eferences
6). The re
erlay of th
bastita co
angles sha
er’s posit
hip to a sq
the const
hasis omit
of half ton
Ans. 5-8)
rounse do
ll in the fir
quare supe
9), this do
rem, the
not be ob
erences in
. See In re
ferences c
e 15, 45
l. 12, ll.
re the
ion that “a
uare zero-
ructed
ted).
e dots in a
.
se [sic] no
st frame
rcell in th
es not
vious to
dividually
Merck &
annot be

t
e
,
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

10
read in isolation, but for what they teach in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See id.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over
Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. As Appellant does not argue the
claims separately, we focus our analysis on claim 1, and claims 3-8 fall with
that claim. However, because our reasoning involved more of the record
than was relied upon by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection.

Claim 9
Appellant contends that claim 9 cannot be found obvious for
essentially the same reasons as discussed for claim 1 (App. Br. 14).
Furthermore, Appellant contends that “[t]here is simply no ‘input device’ of
any nature, manner, or structure, shown in Fig. 8, or otherwise described in
the discussion of Fig. 8 within the disclosure of Crounse.” (Id.)
The Examiner takes the position that Crounse teaches an input device
for designing a halftone supercell, specifically, the reference teaches a
circuit for generating a halftone image as well as a process of generating a
halftone image (Ans. 11; see also Crounse 7: ¶ 0081).
[T]he angle, i.e. the screen angle, between the first frame of
reference, i.e. the horizontal axis, and a second frame, i.e. along
the dot center 6-3-7, is arctangent of A/B . . . a non-square
supercell can be constructed in relationship to a square zero-
shift halftone supercell having a common point for both the
constructed non-square and the square supercell.
(Ans. 11; see also Crounse Fig 3.)
We find that the Examiner has the better position. Claim 9 is directed
to a system which is interpreted to be an apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

11
cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Functional
recitations in an apparatus claim are given weight in that the corresponding
prior art structures must possess the capability of performing the recited
function. See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed above for claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding with regard to the teaching of Crounse.
Appellant contends that Crounse does not teach an input device
(Appeal Br. 14). We are not persuaded; we agree with the Examiner that:
It is a common sense that in order to convert[] a continuous
tome [sic] image to a halftone image, it must have an ‘input
device’ to input the continuous tone image into the circuit so
that it can be converted to a halftone image. Thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art can realize that the ‘input device’ is an
inherent property used for circuit of Figure 8.
(Ans. 38.) Appellant’s argument does not address, and thus fails to
adequately rebut, the specific finding of the Examiner with respect to the
teaching that Crounse inherently uses an input device (id. at 11-14). We
note that Crounse in reference to Fig 8 describes a device for converting
images (FF4). We agree with the Examiner that the image information has
to be entered into the device in order for the device to convert the image.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Crounse
does not disclose an input device.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 as being obvious over
Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. As Appellant does not argue the
claims separately, we focus our analysis on claim 9, and claims 10 and 12-19
fall with that claim.

Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

12
II. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse and Oide
Appellant contends that Crounse does not disclose any “devices” and
that Oide is not applied in any manner which would overcome the
shortcomings of Crounse. (Appeal Br. 15.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Crounse does not
disclose a device. We agree with the Examiner that Crounse in “Fig. 8,
[shows] the device circuit is used to generate halftone image with supercell
of Fig. 2 and threshold matrix of Fig. 5, thus, angle determination must also
been determined by the device circuit of Fig. 8.” (Ans. 40 (emphasis
omitted).) The Examiner acknowledges that “Crounse does not disclose
defining a desired length for a first side and a second side of a pair of sides
of a non-square supercell.” (Id. at 41.) However, the Examiner finds that
determining the length of a side of a right triangle is well within the grasp of
the ordinary artisan, citing Oide in support (id.). The Examiner concludes
that:
The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the
square zero-shift supercell design system, i.e. it would be easier
to determine number of halftone dot center and its frequencies
of at various angle and therefore to improve halftone image
reproduction quality (Par. [0005], Crounse); and further it is
easily implemented by one or other in the art with a predictable
result.
(Id. at 42)
On the record before us, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Crounse in view of Oide. Crounse determines the angle of a
halftone screen using the arctangent A/B (FF2), and specifically refers to
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

13
Fig 8 as being a device (FF4). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that Crounse does not disclose a device.
We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Crounse in view
of Oide renders obvious the apparatus of claim 20. We thus affirm the
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious. As claims
23-29 fall with that claim, we affirm the rejection as to those claims as well.

III. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse, Thales’ theorem, and Holladay
The Examiner acknowledges that “Crounse does not disclose a
display device that displays the determined nominal side length for the
second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell.” (Ans. 29.) The
Examiner looks to Holladay for a teaching of a computer monitor that can
“display [the] values of side length and size of an angle” (id. at 31)
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes that “[t]he motivation for
doing so would have been to enhance the system of designing halftone
screen with a display device for monitoring image half toning process; thus
to ensure halftone image reproduction quality; and further it is easily
implemented by one or other in the art with a predictable result.” (Id.)
Appellant contends that “for the reasons asserted above with regard to
claim 9, Crounse does not disclose any ‘devices’ whatsoever, much less the
recited angle determining device, center number determining device, and, as
argued above specifically, at least one input device” (App. Br. 15).
As discussed above we have found no deficiency in the Examiner’s
prima facie case of claim 9 based on the combination of Crounse in view of
Thales’ theorem. We conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

14
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Crounse in view
of Thales’ theorem (see Ans. 11-14, 28-29) meets all the limitations set out
in the independent claim 9. As Appellant has not put forth additional
arguments with regard to claim 11, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 as
being unpatentable over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem further in view
of Holladay.

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. However, because our
reasoning differs from the Examiner’s, we designate our affirmance as a new
ground of rejection.
We affirm the rejection of claims 20 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Crounse in view of Oide.
We affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem and further in view of Holladay.
However, because our reasoning differs from the Examiner’s, we designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
“Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board.”
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection(s) of one or more
claims, this opinion contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
Appeal 2011-005865
Application 11/727,506

15
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph
shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Should the Appellant elect to prosecute further before the examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection,
the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the
prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does
not result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal,
this case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing
thereof.
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B)
bar

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

11/727,506
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination

Examiner

Art Unit

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

*

Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-5,155,599 10-1992 Delabastita -- --

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

*

Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
Date
MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

V

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Delete Last PageAdd A Page
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2
12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2