Ex Parte Jarett

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 23, 2010

10414864 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/414,864 04/16/2003 Keith Jarett PD-01-133 7287
22462 7590 11/24/2010
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, BRIAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________

Ex parte KEITH JARETT
______________

Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-30, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

A. Appellant’s invention
Appellant’s invention is a hybrid TDM (time division
multiplexing)/FDM (frequency division multiplexing) uplink for a spot-
beam communication system. Specification, title, 2:29-30.
Modern satellites often employ a large number of narrow spot beams,
often in a beam laydown that forms cellular coverage of a wide geographic
area (id. at 2:23-24). In addition to providing better performance, the narrow
beams allow spatial re-use of the same frequency or time slot, so that the
total throughput bandwidth of the satellite can be several times the allocated
frequency band (id. at 2:24-27). Because the traffic demand is not equal for
all the cells, it would be wasteful to allocate the same amount of bandwidth
to each cell (id. at 2:27-28). Therefore, satellite systems typically use either
TDM or FDM techniques (id. at 2:28-30). In a satellite or stratospheric
platform system that covers a wide geographic area with a laydown of
overlapping cells, the average traffic in each cell is roughly proportional to
the user population within that cell (id. at 3:20-22). Cells which cover
remote, unpopulated areas generally have far less traffic than cells that cover
urban areas, and the ratio between highest and lowest traffic cells can exceed
100 to 1 (id. at 3:22-24).
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

3
Appellant’s invention uses a satellite uplink payload configuration
that blends FDM and TDM techniques and permits urban beams to be
assigned both wider time slices and wider frequency bands than rural beams
(id. at 5:3-5).
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a diagram showing an exemplary embodiment of
Appellant’s communication system 100 architecture (id. at 5:26-27). The
ground stations 106 uplink transmissions include uplink data to a satellite
126, which then transponds the received uplink transmissions to a second
ground station 120, such as a Gateway 120 (id. at 5:30–6:3).
Information regarding the selected communications channel
“beamwidth” (sic: bandwidth) and a communications channel dwell time can
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

4
be communicated to ground stations 106, the satellite 126, and any other
entities requiring this information via an auxiliary channel (id. at 6:21-24).
The desired communications channel “beamwidth” (sic: bandwidth) and
communications channel dwell time can be determined by balancing service
capacity among all users, or by giving priority to certain users, as required
(id. at 6:26-28).
A time domain concentrator 112 in satellite 126 combines the signals
provided by each of the receive antennae 110 (i.e., 110A-C) in the satellite
antenna array 108 by switching among the signals provided at the output of
each receive antenna 110 (id. at 6:11-13). The resulting time-division
multiplexed signals are applied to a frequency domain concentrator 114,
which includes a filter bank 122 having a plurality of bandpass filters 128A-
128G (id. at 7:4-7). In one embodiment, the bandpass filters comprise one
or more contiguous surface acoustic wave (SAW) filters with bandwidths
that vary over a factor of approximately ten (id. at 7:7-9). Each of the
bandpass filters 128A-128G admits signals within its passband and rejects
out-of-band signals as noise (id. at 7:9-10). It therefore appears that the step
of “selecting” the communications channel bandwidth and dwell time
involves selecting, for each dwell time, the bandpass filter whose bandwidth
corresponds to the bandwidth of the transmission to be received during that
dwell time.
The frequency domain concentrator 114 also combines (for example,
by concatenation) the uplink transmissions provided by the time domain
concentrator 112 (id. at 7:25-27). The resulting output consists of one or
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

5
more groups of multiple carriers at close to 100% duty factor (id. at 7:27-
28). This output is forwarded to a transmitter 116, which transmits the
information to the Gateway 120 (id. at 7:28-29).

B. The claims
The independent claims before us are claims 1, 11, and 22. Claim 1
reads as follows:
1. A method of uplinking data, comprising the steps of:
(a) selecting a communications channel bandwidth and a
communications channel dwell time for receiving the data from a
first plurality of ground stations disposed in a first cell;
(b) directing one or more of a plurality of receive antennae
to the first cell and dwelling the one or more of the plurality of
receive antennae on the first cell for the selected dwell time, to
receive a first uplink transmission comprising the data from at
least one ground station of the first plurality of ground stations
disposed in the first cell; and
(c) bandfiltering the first uplink transmission by the
selected communications channel bandwidth.
Claims App. (Br. 25).2

C. The references
The rejections are based on the following references:
Natarajan US 5,790,070 Aug. 4, 1998
Sherman US 6,282,179 B1 Aug. 28, 2001

2 Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2008.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

6
Brommer US 2003/0026356 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Lier US 2003/0206134 A1 Nov. 6, 2003

D. The rejections3
Claims 1-21, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Natarajan in view of Sherman. Final Action 3, para. 5.
Claim 22 stands rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Natarajan in view of Brommer. Id. at 5, para. 6.
Claims 23-25 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Natarajan in view of Brommer and Sherman. Id. at 6, para. 7.
Claims 26-28 stand rejected under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Natarajan in view of Brommer and Lier. Id. at 6, para. 8.

ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1-5, 8-16, 19-21, 29, and 30
Natarajan discloses a communication system that preferably employs
steerable antennas 26 for projecting a corresponding number of
independently steerable (i.e., hopping) beams 28 over a number of cells.
Natarajan, col. 2, ll. 9-15.
Natarajan’s Figure 1 is reproduced below.

3 The rejection of claims 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, given in the Final Action (at 2, para. 3) is not repeated in the
Answer and is therefore being treated as withdrawn.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

7

Figure 1 shows a layout diagram of the operating environment of
radio frequency telecommunications network 10 (col. 1, ll. 66-67). Network
10 has any number of subscriber units 24 grouped together in relatively
small geographical areas called microcells 30, with a plurality of microcells
forming a macrocell 32 (col. 2, ll. 16-19). The preferred embodiment of
Natarajan’s system
assigns channel sets to macrocells 32 using a frequency, spatial,
coding, and/or polarity diversity scheme that prevents interference
between macrocells 32. Within macrocell 32, microcells 30 and
subscriber units 24 have individual communication links to
satellite 20 that are prevented from interfering with each other by
time diversity or spread spectrum coding.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

8
Col. 2, l. 62 to col. 3, l. 2.4
Figure 3 of Natarajan is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a timing diagram of frame time interval 56 during which a
single steerable beam 28 services a single macrocell 32 (col. 3, ll. 62-64).
During the connection request segment 58, call request information is
gathered from each microcell 30 (col. 4, ll. 3-5). This figure shows the
connection request 58 segment for the number 6 microcell 30 expanded to
indicate that there are multiple subscriber units 24 (up to NMAX) within each
microcell 30 (col. 4, ll. 7-10). A variety of call requests for connection to
network 10 convey a wide variety of bandwidth requirements (col. 4, ll. 10-
12). For example, a requesting subscriber unit 24 configured as a video

4 In the quotations herein from the references, bolding of the reference
numerals is omitted.

Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

9
terminal may require and request a relatively high bandwidth real-time link
to transceive the video portion of the connection in addition to the normal
voice portion of such a connection (col. 4, ll. 12-16). In contrast, a typical
voice connection’s bandwidth requirements are relatively low (col. 4, ll. 16-
20).
Each steerable beam 28 of the satellite will dwell (i.e., remain focused
for a period of time) on each microcell 30 for an interval that varies
according to the total bandwidth requirements of all subscriber units 24
within the microcell (col. 4, ll. 52-55). The higher the bandwidth
requirement for a particular microcell 30, the longer the beam dwell time
will be for that microcell 30 (col. 4, ll. 55-57).
During a gap 60 (Fig. 3), satellite 20 performs calculations on the
correlated data in order to determine time slot definitions for each subscriber
unit 24 in the microcell (col. 4, ll. 39-42). The data traffic portions of calls
are then implemented using the assigned timeslots during an uplink data
transfer interval 62 of frame 56 (col. 4, ll. 43-45).
Figure 5 of Natarajan is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

10

Figure 5 shows a flow diagram of steps performed by satellite
controller 42 (Fig. 2) in satellite 20 as it assists control station 22 (Fig. 1) in
managing network 10 (col. 5, ll. 31-33). Controller 42 extracts bandwidth
demands for each microcell 30 until all microcells 30 within macrocells 32
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

11
have been tabulated (col. 5, ll. 39-41). Step 74 calculates time slot
assignments for all ongoing calls for all subscriber units 24 in response to
the bandwidth requirements of each call (col. 5, ll. 45-47). After step 74, a
step 88 computes dwell times (i.e., durations) for each microcell 30 by using
time slot assignment durations for each subscriber unit 24, with the dwell
time for each microcell 30 being no shorter in duration than the sum of
timeslot durations allocated to all subscriber units 24 within that given
microcell 30 (col. 5, ll. 62-67). Step 90 next ranks microcells 30 in
decreasing order according to their dwell times (col. 6, ll. 6-7).
In the Final Action, the Examiner reads paragraphs (a) and (b) of
claim 1 on Natarajan and relies on Sherman for the bandfiltering step recited
in paragraph (c). Final Action 3, para. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that paragraph (a) of claim 1 reads on Natarajan as follows:
(a) selecting a communications channel bandwidth (see steps 72
and 74 in figure 5) and a communications channel dwell time (88,
90, and 94 in figure 5) for receiving the data from a first plurality
of ground stations (24 in figure 1) disposed in a first cell (see
figure 1).
Id. Regarding the recited bandwidth selection, the Examiner more
particularly finds that “Natarajan clearly disclose[s] selecting channel
bandwidth by gather[ing] bandwidth demand.” Id. at 7. We understand the
Examiner’s position to be that the claim language “selecting a
communications channel bandwidth . . . for receiving the data from a first
plurality of ground stations disposed in a first cell” is broad enough to read
on gathering bandwidth requests from the subscriber units 24 in one of
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

12
Natarajan’s microcells 30 and using the gathered data to determine the
bandwidth requirement for that microcell.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the term “bandwidth” as used in
claim 1 has a different meaning than the “bandwidth” described in
Natarajan:
The term “bandwidth” has multiple meanings. In digital
communications, “bandwidth” can refer to either (1) the amount
of information that can be transmitted per unit of time (typically
expressed as number of bits or bytes per second (Mb/sec)), or if
the digital information is modulated and transmitted by a carrier,
bandwidth refers to (2) the difference between the highest and
lowest frequencies allocated to the channel modulated by the
carrier (e.g. Δf).
(Br. 13.) Appellant argues that “Natarajan uses the term ‘bandwidth’ as
described by (1) above, while the Applicant uses the term as described by
(2)” (id.). As support for applying the “Δf ” definition to “bandwidth” as
used in claim 1, Appellant argues, correctly in our view, that paragraph (c)
of claim 1, which recites “bandfiltering the first uplink transmission by the
selected communications channel bandwidth,” makes no sense unless the
recited “bandwidth” is interpreted to mean “Δf” (id. at 14).
The Examiner provided two alternative responses to this argument.
The first response, which is that “the claim does not refer the bandwidth to
Δf” (Answer 7), is unconvincing because it fails to take into account
paragraph (c) of claim 1. The Examiner’s second response is that “[e]ven if
the bandwidth refers to Δf, Natarajan does disclose Δf (discrete frequency
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

13
bands) in col. 2, lines 52-56” (id.). These cited lines appear (in italics) in the
following passage:
Satellite 20 communicates through network 10 with
subscriber units 24 using a relatively limited amount of the
electromagnetic spectrum. The precise parameters of this
spectrum are unimportant to the present invention, and may vary
from system to system. The present invention divides this
spectrum into discrete portions or channel sets. For example, the
spectrum may be divided into discrete frequency bands, discrete
time slots, discrete coding techniques, diverse polarities, or a
combination thereof. The precise manner of dividing this
spectrum is also unimportant to the present invention. Desirably,
each of these discrete channel sets is “orthogonal” to all other
channel sets. In other words, simultaneous communications may
take place at a common location over every channel set without
significant interference.
Col 2, ll. 48-62 (emphasis added). According to the Examiner, “when the
spectrum is divided into discrete time slots, the bandfiltering will be timeslot
bandfiltering and when the spectrum is divided into discrete frequency
bands, the bandfiltering will be frequency bandfiltering.” (Answer 7.)
Appellant, who did not file a reply brief, has not specifically addressed the
Examiner’s reliance on the above passage in rejecting claim 1. Although
Appellant at pages 18-20 of the Brief argues against the Examiner’s reliance
on that same passage in rejecting dependent claims 6 and 17 (Final Action 4,
7), those arguments (addressed infra) are specifically directed to the
concatenating language employed in these claims, language that does not
appear in claim 1 or independent claim 11.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

14
Appellant makes two arguments against the Examiner’s reliance on
Sherman in rejecting claims 1 and 11. The first argument, which is that
“Sherman . . . does not disclose selecting a communication channel
bandwidth and communications channel dwell time” (Br. 15), is not
responsive to the Examiner’s reliance (Answer 7) on column 2, lines 52-56
of Natarajan for such a teaching. Appellant also argues against the
obviousness of combining the teachings of Natarajan and Sherman, asserting
that “the ‘bandwidth’ described in Natarajan is of the Mb/second variety, not
the Δf variety” (Br. 17). This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to
address the Examiner’s above-discussed finding (Answer 7) that Natarajan
describes Δf bandwidths in column 2, lines 52-56.
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1 and the rejection of
independent claim 11, which recites limitations similar to those recited in
claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims
2-5, 8-10, 12-16, 19-21, 29, and 30, which are not separately argued. In re
Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

B. Dependent claims 6, 7, 17, and 18
Claim 6 reads as follows:
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising the steps of:
concatenating the bandfiltered first uplink transmission and
the bandfiltered second uplink transmission in frequency; and
forwarding the concatenated and bandfiltered first uplink
transmission and bandfiltered second uplink transmission to a
second ground station.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

15
Claims App. (Br. 26). Claim 17 recites similar limitations.
As already noted, the Examiner relies on the above-quoted passage at
column 2, lines 52-56, of Natarajan for a teaching of the recited
concatenation.5 Final Action 4, 7. Appellant counters that this cited passage
discloses only that the spectrum could be defined using a
combination of discrete frequency bands, time slots, coding
techniques, diverse polarities, or combinations of these. This is
unremarkable, as [is] the fact that channels can be defined using
FDMA, TDMA, CDMA, or by polarization. This does not
disclose how the channel sets are defined or used, nor a
concatenation of a bandfiltered uplink transmission.
(Br. 19.) The Examiner responded by more particularly explaining that
“[w]hen FDMA is used, the concatenation will be in frequency as claimed in
claims 6 and 17” (Answer 8). Appellant, who did not file a reply brief, has
not explained why the Examiner erred in reading the claim term
“concatenating,” which is not defined in the Specification, on this FDMA
technique. The absence of such a definition amounts to an invitation for the
Board to consult Appellant’s Specification and the prior art in order to arrive
at some unspecified interpretation that is narrower than the Examiner’s.
This approach to arguing patentability fails to recognize that the burden of
defining the invention rests on Appellant rather than on the Examiner or the
Board. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

5 The Examiner also relies on column 2, lines 7-9. Final Action 4.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

16
The rejection of claims 6 and 17 is therefore sustained, as is the
rejection of claims 7 and 18, which depend from claims 6 and 17,
respectively.
C. Claim 22
Claim 22 reads as follows:
22. An apparatus for uplinking data, comprising:
a plurality of receive antennae, independently directable
to a plurality of ground stations, each disposed in one of a
plurality of cells;
a time domain concentrator, communicatively coupled to
the plurality of receive antennae, the time domain concentrator
for selectably directing each of the plurality of receive antennae
to one or more of the plurality of cells to receive uplink
transmissions, and for concatenating each of the uplink
transmissions in a time domain; and
a frequency domain concentrator, communicatively
coupled to the time domain concentrator, for concatenating the
uplink transmissions in a frequency domain.
Claims App. (Br. 33) (emphases added).
The Examiner reads the first paragraph of this claim on Natarajan and
relies on Brommer for the recited time domain concentrator and frequency
domain concentrator. Final Action 5-6, para. 6. Brommer’s invention
relates to demodulators and modulators for networks where efficient use of
allocated frequency bandwidth is desirable. Brommer [0004].
Figure 1 of Brommer is reproduced below.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

17

Figure 1 shows an example network 10 of terminals 12-15
communicating through a satellite transponder 16 (id. at [0045]). For a
teaching of a time domain concentrator and frequency domain concentrator,
the Examiner relies on Brommer’s paragraph [0046], which reads as
follows:
[0046] In each case, user terminals 12-15 communicate pair-
wise with the other terminals using bi-directional traffic channels
20-23 radiating through the transponding element as shown in
FIG. 1. These channels 20-23 may be allocated according to
separate frequencies in a frequency domain multiple access
scheme (FDMA), time slots in a time domain multiple access
scheme (TDMA), codes in a code division multiple access scheme
(CDMA) or any other means of partitioning signals, including the
hybrid forms.
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

18
(Emphases added.) The Examiner, citing Natarajan’s above-discussed
disclosure of dividing the electromagnetic spectrum “into discrete frequency
bands, discrete time slots, discrete coding techniques, diverse polarities, or a
combination thereof” (col. 2, ll. 54-56), concludes that “it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to assign frequency and time slots in the time and frequency domains
as taught by Brommer in the system of Natarajan in order to improve system
efficiency.” Final Action 6, para. 6.
Appellant argues: “The Applicant does not dispute that it is well
known in the art to combine FDMA and TDMA. However, prior art systems
do not disclose the use of a time domain concentrator or frequency domain
concatenator . . . features that are not inherent in a simple FDMA/TDMA
system.” (Br. 22.) This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant has not
provided a definition for “concentrator,” “time domain concentrator,” or
“frequency domain concentrator,” let alone cited evidence in support of such
a definition.
The rejection of claim 22 is sustained.

D. Dependent claims 23-25
Claim 23 reads as follows:
23. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the frequency
domain concentrator comprises:
at least one filter bank, the filter bank comprising a
plurality of bandpass filters, each bandpass filter having a
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

19
different bandpass than the other of the plurality of bandpass
filters in the filter bank.
Claims App. (Br. 33).
For a teaching of filter banks, the Examiner cites Sherman.
Sherman’s invention relates to a method and a system for eliminating
multipath fading caused by multiple uplink beams coupling in a bent-pipe
satellite communications system. Sherman, col. 1, ll. 17-20.
Sherman’s Figure 9, on which the Examiner relies, is reproduced
below.

Figure 9 shows a schematic block diagram of a portion of a satellite
900 that is part of a satellite communications system that uses four uplink
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

20
beam code sets (col. 4, ll. 59-61). Uplink beam carrier signals W1-W4 pass
through first bandpass filters 901a-901d, respectively, and then through
other circuitry (col. 4, l. 61–col. 5, l. 11).
Appellant argues that it is improper to combine this teaching of band
pass filters with Natarajan because “Natarajan discloses a system wherein
bandwidth requests (Mb/sec) are accepted from subscriber units and dwell
time is allocated to meet the bandwidth requests.” (Br. 22.) This argument
is unpersuasive because it fails to address the Examiner’s above-noted
reliance, at page 7 of the Answer, on column 2, lines 52-56 of Natarajan for
a teaching of selecting Δf bandwidths.
The rejection of claim 23 is therefore sustained, as is the rejection of
its dependent claims 24 and 25, which are not separately argued. Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572.

E. Dependent claims 26-28
Claim 26 reads as follows:
26. The apparatus of claim 22, wherein the time domain
concentrator comprises:
a plurality of interconnected fan-out splitters and fan-in
combiners.
Claims App. (Br. 34).
For a teaching of fan-out splitters and fan-in combiners, the Examiner
relies on Lier’s paragraphs [0044] and [0046], which describe Figures 8
and 9. Final Action 6, para. 8. Appellant argues that “Lier . . . does not use
fan-out splitters and fan-in combiners to create a time domain concentrator .
Appeal 2009-006606
Application 10/414,864

21
. . it instead uses them to fashion a beamformer.” (Br. 23.) In the Answer,
the Examiner further finds that
Natarajan implicitly discloses a splitter and a combiner. For
example, time division multiple access (TDMA) is a splitter
(divider). In col. 2, lines 7-9, Natarajan discloses that for each
satellite 20, a multiplicity of communication links with subscriber
units 24 are multiplexed together at a single satellite. The
multiplexing is a combiner. Lier explicitly uses the terms splitter
and combiner for dividing and multiplexing signals.
(Answer 8-9.) Appellant has not addressed this additional reasoning of the
Examiner.
The rejection of claim 26 is therefore sustained, as is the rejection of
its dependent claims 27 and 28, which are not separately argued. Nielson,
816 F.2d at 1572.

DECISION
All of the rejections are sustained. The Examiner’s decision that
claims 1-30 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2010).
AFFIRMED
babc
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045