Ex parte HONG

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 1998

08395719 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 1998)

Application for patent filed February 28, 1995. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PARK HONG
____________
Appeal No. 96-3999
Application No. 08/395,7191
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before CALVERT, NASE, and CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NASE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 6. Claim 4 has been objected to as
depending from a non allowed claim. Claims 2 and 5 have been
canceled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter new rejections pursuant to
Appeal No. 96-3999
Application No. 08/395,719
Amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 622
Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997).
37 CFR § 1.196(b) .2
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 3
Application No. 08/395,719
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a stackable container.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in the appendix to
this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Bourcart 2,663,450 Dec. 22, 1953
Westgate 3,018,931 Jan. 30, 1962
Pepicelli 4,294,924 Oct. 13, 1981
(Pepicelli)
Reference made of record by this panel of the Board is:
Torras 2,077,027 Apr. 13, 1937
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bourcart.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pepicelli in view of Westgate.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 102(b) and § 103
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 4
Application No. 08/395,719
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as3
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
9, mailed April 1, 1996) and the supplemental examiner's answer
(Paper No. 11, mailed May 20, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 8, filed March 8, 1996) and reply brief (Paper
No. 10, filed April 29, 1996) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
We sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bourcart.3
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 5
Application No. 08/395,719
The examiner determined (answer, p. 6) that
Bourcart discloses a stackable container as shown in
Fig. 3 comprising a hollow cylinder 41, integral top wall
42, integral bottom wall with a circular well 51 and tubular
threaded mouth member 43 which receives threaded cap 44.
The well has a diameter which would receive the mouth of a
second like container and allow stacking of the containers
with a close fitting sliding interlocking relationship.
The appellant argues (reply brief, p. 2) that the following
limitations of claim 1 are not met by Bourcart. First, that the
well at the bottom of the container has "a selected diameter to
receive the tubular mouth member of a second like container to
enable the first container to be stacked on top of the second
container" is not met by Bourcart since the shallow recess at the
bottom of his vial of Figure 3 is configured to receive the cap
of an entirely different container. Second, that "the outer
diameter of the annular skirt portion of said cover and the inner
diameter of the well are selected to enable the first container
to be stacked over the second container in a close fitting
sliding interlocking relationship" is not met by Bourcart since
any attempt to place the vial of Figure 3 on top of a similar
vial would cause the upper vial to tip over as the diameter of
the cover in Bourcart is not selected to enable the first
container to be fitted over a second like container in a close
fitting sliding interlocking relationship.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 6
Application No. 08/395,719
Thus, before deciding this rejection, it is an essential
prerequisite that the claimed subject matter be fully understood.
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 begins with a determination of the
scope of the claim. The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art. Claim interpretation must begin
with the language of the claim itself. See Smithkline
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878,
882, 8 USPQ2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we will
now direct our attention to appellant's claim 1 to derive an
understanding of the scope and content thereof.
Claim 1 recites "[a] first stackable container . . .
comprising: a hollow cylinder having an integral top wall and an
integral bottom wall, a tubular mouth member formed integral with
the top wall and centrally located on the top wall coaxial with
the hollow cylinder, . . . ; said bottom wall having a circular
well centrally formed therein coaxial with said cylinder and
extending upwardly into the interior of said cylinder, and said
well having a selected diameter to receive the tubular mouth
member of a second like container to enable the first container
to be stacked on top of the second container; a cover having an
internally threaded annular skirt portion removably mounted on
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 7
Application No. 08/395,719
said tubular mouth member in threaded engagement therewith and
with said skirt portion extending down over said tubular mouth
member, and in which the outer diameter of the annular skirt
portion of said cover and the inner diameter of the well are
selected to enable the first container to be stacked over the
second container in a close fitting sliding interlocking
relationship."
Our review of independent claim 1 reveals that we are unable
to derive a proper understanding of the scope and content
thereof. Specifically, it is our determination that claim 1 is
subject to two interpretations: one interpretation would support
the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Bourcart and the other interpretation would not support the
examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Bourcart.
The first interpretation is that the claim is directed to a first
container adapted to stack with another container wherein the
covers of the two containers may have different diameters. The
second interpretation is that the claim is directed to a first
container adapted to stack with another container wherein both
containers must have covers with the same diameter. Since we are
unable to derive a proper understanding of the scope and content
of claim 1, we believe that the proper course of action is to
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 8
Application No. 08/395,719
enter a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
We recognize the inconsistency implicit in our holding that
claim 1 is rejectable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
with a holding that claim 1 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the
interpretation of a claim and no reasonably definite meaning can
be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a determination as to
patentability over the prior art is not made. See In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). However, in this instance, we
consider it to be desirable to avoid the inefficiency of
piecemeal appellate review. See Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537
(Bd. App. 1984). Accordingly, we interpret appellant's claim 1
according to the above-noted first interpretation.
The inquiry as to whether a reference anticipates a claim
must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the claim and
what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth
by the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S.
1026 (1984), it is only necessary for the claims to "'read on'
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 9
Application No. 08/395,719
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of
the claim are found in the reference, or 'fully met' by it."
When applying this first interpretation, we read claim 1 on
Bourcart as follows: A first stackable container (Bourcart's vial
or bottle 40) for seasonings, such as salt, pepper and spices,
comprising: a hollow cylinder (Bourcart's base portion 41) having
an integral top wall (Bourcart's disc 42) and an integral bottom
wall (see Bourcart's Figure 3), a tubular mouth member
(Bourcart's neck 43) formed integral with the top wall and
centrally located on the top wall coaxial with the hollow
cylinder, said tubular mouth member having external threads
thereon and having a reduced diameter with respect to the
diameter of said top wail and extending upwardly from the plane
of said top wall (see Bourcart's Figure 3); said bottom wall
having a circular well (Bourcart's recess 51) centrally formed
therein coaxial with said cylinder and extending upwardly into
the interior of said cylinder (see Bourcart's Figure 3), and said
well having a selected diameter to receive the tubular mouth
member of a second like container to enable the first container
to be stacked on top of the second container (Bourcart's recess
51 has a diameter designed to receive the tubular mouth member
(i.e., projecting portion 49) of a second like container (e.g.,
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 10
Application No. 08/395,719
cylindrical box 31) to enable the first container to be stacked
on top of the second container as shown in Figure 1); a cover
(Bourcart's lid 44) having an internally threaded annular skirt
portion removably mounted on said tubular mouth member in
threaded engagement therewith and with said skirt portion
extending down over said tubular mouth member (see Bourcart's
Figure 3), and in which the outer diameter of the annular skirt
portion of said cover and the inner diameter of the well are
selected to enable the first container to be stacked over the
second container in a close fitting sliding interlocking
relationship (since Bourcart's first container (i.e., vial 40) is
stacked over the second container (e.g., cylindrical box 31) in a
close fitting sliding interlocking relationship as shown in
Figure 1, it is inherent that Bourcart has selected an
appropriate outer diameter for the annular skirt portion of the
cover (i.e., lid 44) and the inner diameter of the well (i.e.,
recess 51).
Since all the limitations of claim 1 are found in Bourcart,
the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 11
Application No. 08/395,719
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of4
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pepicelli4
in view of Westgate.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a case of obviousness.
See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993). A case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that the reference teachings would appear to
be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art
having the references before him to make the proposed combination
or other modification. See In re Lintner, 9 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173
USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence,
as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
that would have led that individual to combine the relevant
teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 12
Application No. 08/395,719
Cir. 1988). The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
the factual basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by
the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Pepicelli discloses a container for growing anaerobic
microorganisms having a cone-shaped dish 10 and a matching
cone-shaped cover 12 that define between them a prescribed
volume. An overflow trough 20 surrounds the dish, and the
peripheries of the dish and cover seal together by excess agar
medium carrying the organisms squeezed from the volume as the
cover is applied to the dish. The colonies of organisms can be
viewed either through the dish or cover because each is
transparent. As shown in figure 4a, the cover 12 has an outer
wall or skirt 62 has an inner diameter which is slightly larger
than the outer diameter of the wall 32 of the base 10 so that the
cover may easily be placed in position on the base. Pepicelli
teaches (column 4, lines 8--12) that the
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 13
Application No. 08/395,719
skirt 62 fits loosely over wall 32 of the spill chamber [so
that] the gas may flow out of the container and no pressure
build up is created. In this fashion the container may be
incubated so as to stimulate the growth of the
microorganisms.
Westgate discloses a condiment container which is shaped so
as to permit easy stacking of condiment containers on one
another. The condiment container includes, inter alia, a glass
or clear plastic jar 10, a fitment 15 and a cap 45. The cap 45
may be threaded and is provided with an annular ridge 46. The
fitment 15 is provided with sifting holes 20. The jar 10 has a
neck 11 provided with an external thread 13 and a recess 47
provided in the bottom of the jar. The recess 47 and ridge 46
aid in the stacking of the jars so that one jar can be mounted on
top of another.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 5) that
[i]t would have been obvious to add a threaded cap
connection to Pepicelli's container to provide for a more
tightly secured cap which has to be opened by twisting
rather than a mere pull in the vertical direction.
The appellant argues (brief, p. 9) that
merely because Westgate has a threaded cap would in no way
serve to make Pepicelli in any way suggestive of the
dissimilar container of the present invention.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 14
Application No. 08/395,719
We agree with the appellant that the combined teachings of
Pepicelli and Westgate would not have suggested the claimed
invention. In that regard, it is our opinion that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Pepicelli's
wall 32 and skirt 62 to have a threaded connection therebetween,
as proposed by the examiner, since that would be counter to
Petricelli's specific desire to permit gas flow out of the
container between the skirt 62 and wall 32 so that no pressure
build up is created and the container may be incubated so as to
stimulate the growth of the microorganisms. Since all the
limitations of claim 1, and claims 3 and 6 dependent thereon, are
not suggested by the applied prior art, the examiner's rejection
is reversed.
New grounds of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new grounds of rejection.
1. Claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention for the reasons set forth
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 15
Application No. 08/395,719
above in the discussion of the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1.
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bourcart. Dependent claim 6 adds to parent claim
1 the limitation that the "cylinder is formed of a transparent
material." Bourcart teaches (column 1, lines 54, to column 2,
line 1) that the container may be made of transparent material.
In view of our holding above the claim 1 is anticipated by
Bourcart and that the added limitation of claim 6 is specifically
taught by Bourcart, it follows that claim 6 is also anticipated
by Bourcart.
3. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Torras.
Torras discloses a container for food and beverages. As
shown in Figure 1, the container 10 has a cylindrical wall 11, a
bottom 12, top 13 and a crown cap 16 or screw cap (not shown).
The bottom 12 and top 13 are secured to the wall 11 in the
conventional manner of seam construction. The top 13 has a
substantially frustro-conical wall forming shoulder S and a
substantially cylindrical wall protrudes from the shoulder S to
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 16
Application No. 08/395,719
form a neck 15. Neck 15 is provided with threads when a screw
cap is utilized. Bottom 12 is provided with a cylindrical recess
17 and an upwardly extending conical portion 18, complementary
with the top 13. Figure 1 of Torras shows two adjacently stacked
similar containers wherein the cap 16 of the bottom container is
within the cylindrical recess 17 of the top container and the
upwardly extending conical portion 18 of the top container rests
on the shoulder S of the bottom container.
We read claim 1 on Torras as follows: A first stackable
container (Torras' upper container 10) for seasonings, such as
salt, pepper and spices, comprising: a hollow cylinder (Torras'
wall 11) having an integral top wall (Torras' top 13) and an
integral bottom wall (Torras' bottom 12), a tubular mouth member
(Torras' neck 15) formed integral with the top wall and centrally
located on the top wall coaxial with the hollow cylinder, said
tubular mouth member having external threads thereon (when a
screw cap is employed in place of the crown cap 16 as taught by
Torras) and having a reduced diameter with respect to the
diameter of said top wail and extending upwardly from the plane
of said top wall (see Torras' Figure 1); said bottom wall having
a circular well (Torras' recess 17) centrally formed therein
coaxial with said cylinder and extending upwardly into the
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 17
Application No. 08/395,719
interior of said cylinder (see Torras' Figure 1), and said well
having a selected diameter to receive the tubular mouth member of
a second like container to enable the first container to be
stacked on top of the second container (see Torras' Figure 1) of
a second like container (Torras' bottom container 10) to enable
the first container to be stacked on top of the second; a cover
having an internally threaded annular skirt portion (the screw
cap employed in place of the crown cap 16 as taught by Torras)
removably mounted on said tubular mouth member in threaded
engagement therewith and with said skirt portion extending down
over said tubular mouth member (see Torras' Figure 1), and in
which the outer diameter of the annular skirt portion of said
cover and the inner diameter of the well are selected to enable
the first container to be stacked over the second container in a
close fitting sliding interlocking relationship (see Torras'
Figure 1).
As to claim 3, we note that the claimed concave annular
surface "reads on" Torras' conical portion 18 and that the
claimed annular convex surface "reads on" Torras' conical
shoulder S.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 18
Application No. 08/395,719
4. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Torras in view of Westgate.
The teachings of Torras and Westgate have been previously
set forth. Thus, after the scope and content of the prior art
are determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Torras and dependent
claims 4 and 6, it is our opinion that the only differences are
the limitations that a perforated cap is fitted over the tubular
mouth member under the cover (claim 4) and the cylinder is formed
of a transparent material (claim 6).
With regard to claim 4, it is our opinion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the appellant's invention to modify Torras' food container to
contain a condiment and to provide the container with a
perforated cap fitted over the neck 15 (i.e., the tubular mouth
member) under the screw cap (i.e., cover) as suggested by
Westgate's condiment container having a fitment 15 with sifting
holes 20.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 19
Application No. 08/395,719
With regard to claim 6, it is our opinion that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the appellant's invention to modify the cylindrical wall 11 of
Torras' container to be transparent as suggested by Westgate's
teaching to provide a glass or clear plastic jar to permit the
contents of the jar to be visible.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed; the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed; and new rejections of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claims 1, 3 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have
been added pursuant to provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains new grounds of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53131, 53197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides, "A new ground of rejection shall not be
considered final for purposes of judicial review."
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 20
Application No. 08/395,719

Regarding any affirmed rejection, 37 CFR § 1.197(b)
provides:
(b) Appellant may file a single request for rehearing
within two months from the date of the original
decision . . . .
37 CFR § 1.196(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 grounds of
rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37 CFR § 1.197(c))
as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims
so rejected or a showing of facts relating to the
claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be reheard under
§ 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before the
Primary Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(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.
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 21
Application No. 08/395,719
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 Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences for final action on the affirmed
rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 22
Application No. 08/395,719
KEITH D. BEECHER
1180 NAPOLI DRIVE
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
Appeal No. 96-3999
Application No. 08/395,719
Page 1
APPENDIX
1. A first stackable container for seasonings, such as
salt, pepper and spices, comprising:
a hollow cylinder having an integral top wall and an
integral bottom wall, a tubular mouth member formed integral with
the top wall and centrally located on the top wall coaxial with
the hollow cylinder, said tubular mouth member having external
threads thereon and having a reduced diameter with respect to the
diameter of said top wail and extending upwardly from the plane
of said top wall;
said bottom wall having a circular well centrally formed
therein coaxial with said cylinder and extending upwardly into
the interior of said cylinder, and said well having a selected
diameter to receive the tubular mouth member of a second like
container to enable the first container to be stacked on top of
the second container;
a cover having an internally threaded annular skirt portion
removably mounted on said tubular mouth member in threaded
engagement therewith and with said skirt portion extending down
over said tubular mouth member, and in which the outer diameter
of the annular skirt portion of said cover and the inner diameter
of the well are selected to enable the first container to be
stacked over the second container in a close fitting sliding
interlocking relationship.
APPEAL NO. 96-3999 - JUDGE NASE
APPLICATION NO. 08/395,719
APJ NASE
APJ CALVERT
APJ CRAWFORD
DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-PART;
37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Prepared By: Delores A. Lowe
DRAFT TYPED: 02 Apr 98
FINAL TYPED: