Ex Parte OnyenemezuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201612209066 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/209,066 09/11/2008 Clement N. ONYF.NE.MF.7U 29617/SH034 3761 11923 7590 12/29/2016 Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP (Newell) 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL 60606 EXAMINER HUHN, RICHARD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1764 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mgbdocket@marshallip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLEMENT N. ONYENEMEZU Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Technology Center 1700 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, AVELYN M. ROSS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1, 6—19, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 In the Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed September 11, 2008 (“Spec.”), the Final Action mailed August 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 19, 2014 (“App. Br.”), the Answer mailed May 1, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 1, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant identifies Sanford, L.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of Newell Rubbermaid Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 The claims are directed to washable ink compositions comprising a pigment capsule and a washing aide, a dry-erase board having a written marking comprising the washable ink composition, and a writing instrument comprising the washable ink composition. See, e.g., claims 1,16, and 19. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A washable ink composition comprising: (a) at least one pigment capsule comprising a polymer matrix formed of a resin, wherein the resin is a formaldehyde resin; and at least one colorant contained in the polymer matrix; and, (b) at least one washing aid comprising at least 8 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid, wherein the at least one washing aid is selected from the group consisting of alkylphenol ethoxylate derivatives. App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art relied in rejecting the claims on appeal: Okuzono et al. US 4,740,549 Apr. 26, 1988 (“Okuzono”) Kumar et al. US 5,597,557 Jan. 28, 1997 (“Kumar”) Nakamura et al. US 5,961,704 Oct. 5, 1999 (“Nakamura”) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 6—19, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Kumar and Okuzono. Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 OPINION The Examiner rejects the pending claims over Nakamura in view of Kumar and Okuzono. Final Act. 3. Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1, 6—13, 17, 18, and 30 as a group. App. Br. 5. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. Appellant separately argues for the patentability of claims 14—16 and 19, and we address those claims separately below. Nakamura The Examiner finds that Nakamura discloses a washable ink composition comprising a pigment capsule comprising a polymer matrix formed from a resin such as a melamine resin and at least one colorant contained in the polymer matrix.3 Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds that Nakamura discloses a separating agent that enables the ink to be easily erased from a writing board. Id. According to the Examiner, Nakamura fails to specifically describe a melamine resin that is a formaldehyde resin or a washing aid comprising at least 8 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid, wherein the at least one washing aid is selected from the group consisting of alkylphenol ethoxylate derivatives. Id. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding Nakamura’s disclosures. 3 Appellant contends that Nakamura does not disclose that its ink compositions are washable, but rather that they are erasable. App. Br. 4, n.l. The term “washable” in the preamble of claim 1 does not connote a difference between the claimed composition and Nakamura, and does not eliminate Nakamura as relevant prior art. See, for example, claim 16, which recites a dry-erase board having a written marking comprising the ink of claim 14. Id. at 13. 3 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Kumar Appellant argues that Kumar is non-analogous art. App. Br. 5. Whether Kumar is within the scope of the prior art one of ordinary skill in the art would have been presumed to have been aware, i.e., analogous art, is a threshold question in our inquiry of obviousness. To label a reference as analogous art “merely connotes that it is relevant to a consideration of obviousness under § 103 as ‘prior art.’” In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the in ventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Biglo, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the Specification states [fjhe disclosure is generally related to washable ink compositions and writing instruments containing the same. More particularly, the disclosure is related to washable ink compositions including a pigment capsule having at least one colorant contained therein. .. . Washability from clothing and other items made from fabrics is a highly desirable attribute for ink compositions. Spec. H1—2. Kumar discloses “[a] process for making solid colored particles by preparing a reaction solution in water comprising formaldehyde,” in addition to other components, and polymerizing the reactive components to form microcapsules that “provide excellent color and are easily washable from a substrate,” including fabric, “when incorporated into a washable 4 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 formulation.” Kumar col. 2,11. 6—19. Kumar is from the same field of endeavor, i.e., washable ink compositions, and is within the scope of prior art to be considered in evaluating obviousness. The Examiner applies Kumar as teaching easily washable colored microcapsules made from an aminoplast resin that is a reaction product of melamine and formaldehyde. Final Act. 3^4. According to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to prepare Nakamura’s melamine resin microcapsules by using resins disclosed in Kumar in order to arrive at the claimed pigment capsules comprising a polymer matrix formed of an aminoplast resin comprising the reaction product of melamine and formaldehyde.4 Id. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s motivation to combine, relying instead only on the “non-analogous art” argument. Okuzono The Examiner finds Okuzono describes wipe-erasable ink compositions for a writing board that include an additive meeting the requirements of the “at least one washing aid comprising at least 8 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid, wherein the at least one washing 4 We note for the record that Nakamura discloses “melamine resin” as an example of membrane-forming materials constituting the shell of the microcapsules. Nakamura col. 2,11. 9—17. “Melamine resins” are also referred to as “melamine/formaldehyde resins,” or “MF,” and are formed by the reaction of melamine and formaldehyde. See Thomas Brock, Michael Groteklaes, & Peter Mischke, Synthetic Film Formers, in European Coatings Handbook 53—71 (Ulrich Zorll ed., 2000). Consequently, the melamine resin disclosed in Nakamura discloses “wherein the resin is a formaldehyde resin” recited in claim 1. 5 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 aid is selected from the group consisting of alkylphenol ethoxylate derivatives” limitation recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4—5. Okuzono teaches nonylphenol ethoxylate (polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether) as a nonionic surface active agent. Okuzono col. 4, In. 66-col. 5, In. 7. The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether is an alkylphenol ethoxylate derivative comprising at least 8 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have substituted Okuzono’s “release agent” (additive for manifesting erasability, which includes polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether) for the separating agent of Nakamura to obtain an ink composition that is easily erasable. Final Act. 5. It is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Examiner also finds that the release agents (additives) of Okuzono and the ink composition of Nakamura perform the same function separately as they do together, therefore, the result of the combination would have been predictable. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have modified Nakamura’s composition with Okuzono’s additive in view of the entirety of Okuzono. App. Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that the comparative examples in Okuzono demonstrate that the nonionic surface active agents tested in Okuzono are, by themselves, ineffective at providing erasability. Id. Appellant points to Comparative Example 1, wherein the additive comprises only polyoxyethylene lauryl ether and dioctyl adipate, which is scored as 6 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 “difficult to erase.” Id. at 6—7 (citing Okuzono Table 1). Appellant argues that Okuzono teaches that polyoxyethylene lauryl ether (which does not fall within the scope of claim 1 and is tested in Comparative Example 1) is “interchangeable” with polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether (which does fall within the scope of claim 1, but Appellant contends is not tested in Okuzono). App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends, therefore, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have been motivated to substitute the surface active agents taught in Okuzono for the separating agent taught in Nakamura in order to achieve the invention of claim 1. Id. at 7. The Examiner counters that Okuzono’s comparative examples are not representative of the reference’s inventive surfactant systems. Ans. 7. The Examiner argues that the skilled artisan at the time would have substituted the successful additive combination taught by Okuzono (a nonionic surface active agent having an HLB value of 8 to 14, a cationic organic compound, and a slightly volatile or nonvolatile organic compound) for Nakamura’s separating agent, with predictable results. Ans. 7. Appellant contends, incorrectly, that the Examiner concedes that it would not have been obvious to substitute into or combine with Nakamura’s ink compositions the surfactants of Okuzono’s comparative examples. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner makes no such concession. Appellant also contends, incorrectly, that the Examiner has not provided a rationale for substituting Okuzono’s combination of a nonionic surface active agent, a cationic organic compound, and a slightly volatile or nonvolatile organic compound into Nakamura’s ink compositions. Id. 7 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Claim 1 contains the open transitional term “comprising,” which permits elements in addition to those specified to be included in the composition of the claim. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The additional elements of “a cationic organic compound, and a slightly volatile or nonvolatile organic compound” disclosed in Okuzono may be considered within the scope of the claim. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Nakamura and Okuzono would have been obvious, based on the substitution of Okuzono’s additives for Nakamura’s separating agent in the composition of Nakamura. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”); In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 483 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding it obvious to substitute one known alkaline reacting compound (ARC) for another where each was known to stabilize omeprazole); In re Font, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion. Appellant argues that the modification of Nakamura proposed by the Examiner would not have been predictable. App. Br. 8. This argument is based on Appellant’s position that Okuzono must be limited in its teaching to the nonionic surface active agent. See id. As we earlier rejected Appellant’s position, we likewise reject this argument and conclude that Nakamura and Okuzono are properly combinable with a reasonable expectation of success. 8 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Finally, Appellant argues that the claimed invention achieves surprising and unexpected results. App. Br. 9. Appellant identifies Examples 1, 2, 4, and 5 in the Specification as examples in accordance with the pending claims, and contrasts them with Comparative Examples 1 to 3, which Appellant says are not in accordance with the claims. Id. Appellant contends that contrasting the cited Examples with the Comparative Examples demonstrates “the importance of both the particular washing aid the particular pigment capsule resin in combination in producing an ink composition that yields superior washability from a variety of fabrics.” Id. (emphasis in original). Examples 1—4 and Comparative Examples 1—3 are made with the same pigment (MP-BL6182) in the same formaldehyde resin, but differ in the washing aid employed. Spec. 10—14. Example 5 is made with a different pigment (Panaz FB 403 red) and a different formaldehyde resin. Id. at 13. The washing aids in the Examples are (1) octylphenol ethoxylates having 30 (Example 1) or 55 (Example 2) ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid; (2) an ethoxylated aliphatic amine having 15 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid (not a claimed alkylphenol ethoxylate derivatives); or (3) a mixture of an octylphenol ethoxylate having 9.5 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid and an ethoxylated aliphatic amine having 15 ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid (Examples 4 and 5). Id. at 12—13. Comparative Example 4 is made with a different pigment than that used in Examples 1—4 and Comparative Examples 1—3, a formaldehyde resin (sulfonamide/melamine-formaldehyde resin), and the same washing aid as employed in Examples 4 and 5. Id. at 12. Comparative Examples 1—3 comprise either 2 (Comparative Example 1) 9 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 or zero (Comparative Examples 2 and 3) ethylene oxide units per molecule of washing aid. Id. at 11—112. Appellant’s selective identification of Examples 1, 2, 4, and 5 and Comparative Examples 1—3 to show surprising and unexpected results is not persuasive. When considering the data provided in the Specification, the same pigment in the same resin left no visible stain after washing, whether the washing aid was an ethoxylated aliphatic amine (Example 3) or was selected from the group consisting of alkylphenol ethoxylate derivatives, as required by claim 1 (Examples 1 and 2). Id. at 16. Comparative Example 4, comprising a formaldehyde resin as required by claim 1 and the same washing aid as employed in Examples 4 and 5, but a different pigment (Irgalite CG2 orange 13) left a moderate to severe stain after washing, while Examples 4 and 5 left no visible stain. Id. This result indicates the use of a particular washing aid in combination with pigment in a formaldehyde resin fails to provide consistently good results. Comparative Example 6, comprising a pigment and no polymeric matrix at all, but including the washing aid of Examples 4 and 5, left no visible stain in two of five fabric samples after washing. Claim 1 is much broader than the proposed data supports. “A nexus is required between the merits of the claimed invention and the evidence offered, if that evidence is to be given substantial weight enroute to conclusion on the obviousness issue.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, Appellant fails to provide the required nexus. Unexpected results must be “commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claims on appeal.” In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Graselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 10 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (It is well settled “that objective evidence of non obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.”). While Appellant need not show every property is unexpected, he must show that whatever property he asserts is unexpected is unexpected throughout the claimed range, but not outside that critical range. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Even if Appellant had shown that a particular Example has just one unexpected property (with other properties being expected), Appellant has not established that the other compositions within the ambit of the claim also have the unexpected property while the compositions outside the critical range do not have the unexpected property. The data provided by Appellant in the Specification is inadequate to support the claimed composition, and Appellant’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive. The Examiner did not reversibly err in rejecting claim 1. Patentability of Claims 14 and 15 Appellant argues that claims 14 and 15 are patentable over Nakamura in view of Kumar and Okuzono because the Examiner’s ground of “simple substitution of one known element for another” does not identity each and every feature recited in claims 14 and 15. App. Br. 9. Claim 14 recites “[t]he washable ink composition of claim 1, further comprising a release agent,” and claim 15 further requires “wherein the release agent comprises from about 2 wt% to about 20 wt% of the ink composition.” Id. at 13 (Claims App’x). Appellant contends that claims 14 and 15 require both a washing aid selected from alkylphenol ethoxylate derivative and comprising at least 8 ethylene oxide units per molecule and a release agent. Id. at 9—10. 11 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Appellant argues that Nakamura does not disclose a composition containing both a separating agent and a distinct additional component corresponding to the claimed release agent. Id. at 10. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Nakamura discloses a washable ink composition comprising a separating agent that enables the ink to be easily erased from a writing board in an amount of 0.5—15 wt%, preferably 1—10 wt% of the ink composition, which the Examiner finds corresponds to the amount presently recited in claims 14 and 15. Final Act. 3. In response to Appellant’s argument that Nakamura must disclose both a separating agent and a distinct release agent, the Examiner contends that the rejection includes a combination rationale (combination of Nakamura and Okuzono), not merely a substitution rationale. Ans. 10. The Examiner argues that Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the rejection. Id. In the Final Action, the Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have substituted the release agents taught by Okuzono for those taught by Nakamura with predictable results. Final Act. 5. Ozukono discloses a nonionic surface active agent, a cationic organic compound, and a slightly volatile or nonvolatile organic compound. Okuzono col. 4,11. 18—22. Okuzono specifically discloses several slightly volatile or nonvolatile organic compounds (dioctyl sebacate, dioctyl adipate, butyl stearate, and butyl oleate) that are identical to release agents disclosed in the Specification. Compare Okuzono col. 5,11. 25—30 with Spec. 128. On these facts, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15. Patentability of claims 16 and 19 12 Appeal 2015-006717 Application 12/209,066 Claim 16 recites “[a] dry-erase board having a written marking comprising the ink of claim 14.” App.Br. 13. Claim 19 recites “[a] writing instrument comprising the washable ink composition of claim 1.” Id. Appellant argues that Kumar is non-analogous art to both claims. Id. at 10 and 11. However, the Examiner relies on Nakamura for disclosing that ink compositions are used in a writing instrument for providing written markings on a dry erase board. Final Act. 7. On these facts, Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6— 19, and 30 is 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 13 Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination 12/209066 Clement Onyenemezu Examiner Art Unit Richard Huhn Page of U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Name Classification A us- B us- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- 1 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 European Coatings Handbook, Brock/Groteklaes/Mischke,Coatings 2000,Curt R. Vincentz Verlag, Hannover 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. Dr T'hmrsas Brafe'Di: Michad (Irmtsktaea/Or, .fesr Mtedtfe European Edged by Or. Ulrids lotll TbsayEgeb by l-feifbyf 'feysos and .Eiger TragySaitnns Lid. '^'h .1 » £>?>* C;-;’,i:.:ijxiicil. i iR6£c-:\ £^x3x'£&;, J'-affas -it i,** »«• £****4* j&a $» wtsbitte# $& &« t** ;£; SSJiJft. Can ft. VtoxwA SRRtoy, .&$&«&**? Vts<'Kfli» Vsris:g.. r£5§ ‘$247. $CK?&2 Siaiasyv'Mi Ckswwy ft;.; jwsi»« •«' i:ii;s Rift.y vs’-tflilSAWtw w?y Swtjm « fcy sr> uss:«<. ^wkvibliJ: iii^i^Re; f’fcR-O^ARRiy fc’Afcd&fcSj. »k::W^y;Re\ ttt &>' iOy srtxojy; of «:fti<-,v->!: ?y$r!Wj vcriixist jx^ss^R Jr £*>:« ite :jxR<&:' 'X'JLOi^XO Nv Yiwavs >**&$, ScStsfi^iTO R x X>i'7 CkuxRRy ;)>i----^45.'‘$ *kw ¥**>*-**/$ §)*$$ tCMSiHi ?S-.>xtSj trs:: ‘>V i«$K>&c, M«'ci»>y« Contents i inmvi'sftlfjsi .......... .................n 14 }:U^r><. U...... 1 ' ft i' >• '«. t ' ' > .... NrlJilf.'M sKlfvMiK^Si' .................................. ...................... . 44: ----------------------------- ----------______ ;<.5 4 ?:;;w ...................................... .............. s>0- ...... .... 4 > 4.1s3s;is4sx2:B aasi safaiatssf ....................... ......v...5?^ J ‘3 Slfeasfffafiaaiio!! af ootvsssts...................................................- ■■ ^.2.} Jsrislsjs ijto&aftis ....................................... ............... 2.242 Sasesssiss veSSii fc>\4r«jjf:a feri^gsSiAagt!...... ,,.,,......... ............. ......... . 93 2:2.24 SsSaftSis-isStfc oxalfs-afoly samss: tty&ogea teSilge SinfeiSt!..... .................. . 94 2.2.2 $ SaivsiBSs M 4ffia§ feysisasys Sissgaga....... ............ ........................ ....... . 95' 2.2. -2 4f jffTff- ...........____ .___ ................. .................... ............... ..... ________ ........ 2 2.2.2. t Vvi®Si8SV.,______ ____________________ __________ ___________ .................... 22 5 2 PsssfiSy.......... .................... ................................. ........ ....................... ,............ 199 2 2.2.2 Safiass: teftsias....... .................... 199 2.2.24 j4:s4v. ....... .................... .............. ..... ________ .... SOS 2.244 Viscosity . . 85 2.2.S4 Ofesr pitysics! prapartlos.___________ 193 2.24.2 Fgyytoiogisiai: ytyiajfSas ........ ......... 18* ;‘.2l4 SaSvssts irs ixarias; mSHijisis.......... ........... ... 194 2.24.1 i9ila4Sif.es o? saivessss os iSs pfssfiofifcs as' sasiifiss assit osaa&g otssossss......... 194 2.24.2 SaSessss is iff- NfivSa stsO K4xtisiB>-sog4s.foatisss... -.................. ........... .....— 193 2.2,44 SfiivsK.ss i® siyiysolisis cssiiftp......................................... ................................... 193 2.24 4 :if iss :'f sfaas ... . ... .............. ......... ............ ............... ... . 199 2 3 PigjBssts efts! filters................. ............ ......... ....... ...... .............. ............. ,...... . 199 2.3.5 iaifiBilsssss sutei siesssissitteR 2.3.5 2 -SScsiflift-sssStte^3ri;:U«a:)iS.<9*p$!^33i«£rfrf5........................ 13! 2 3,3,3 CsiimN* plsisiitetete............ ........ i:35 2,13.4 MMtfteti mmsmt ntfn'mr ffcitiifyi is psXJ&siOea iNSB ids- liBStiiy OXasi&SiS SiV SaSisSSig SSSfi •XSSftii yf :;fBidKi' tfKi;. Sis XhaRitesS t«jsis asiAffiS fisidy-ris vary :v:xdxXy<:d,xga!>rs:XK;x ■ OR X. <':!•••:: KM, :••» •.'<*.» SN, OK, OR, i " S " i ' OssftK CffiSN •ycs:a.a,^:sws-ty /’ \ ..■' \ .••' \ iraftyra* ... " CHx CHr-CH, £H,----. .. Tbs s&iyriw ^v>di:-c.t wfook is vt:srssSst'S;.eb by s tysb oTssstss bsftds, ?;^r> h-y !>KidAvb>0::. :•>; bstiTlS iifcil i:i 3R CSSitRjg SSiVS'ftiiy it fSSi : r - I .^:"s i i \- 5* ' JtlSttiS Ml" 5. * f OSV 0* ff S,.'* 5 "Ml 5:5 5t t* S U v2 >'i s " WC * "t'*'!vt V ^ i 2 <0 $ ' St t">>t i" Us ? '' K '■> ' I*' SU: ’ St V* O jy y's ^ vO: s K •.; 3 * } }J-« ut *<* tv tSt-t r s\ f ,«s 4'^>ik*oS, v\ v vs- Is «-\n y'V ^5S > oU*'s t>SU ?SW 5^ ' U \LUU * U $ S lt‘ EtS •S&'V' "S Vs 'X ^ ^ ^ l\« tushs St Uv- & HU • V ts iv3 ■t us «'hi s 'i '*\ s 4«s: o uvy t,.o e'i v $ :t * * •. -y st5- c \ t -0 % ' ' S0)? "» t *■•'? SN >1 k< ^ t>- S ?%U5? U\ ■ ^5 > jf -HJ . > V ;V 'S.V " ) ' s /[ «i K* hfc" ^ oi' mo $ l*"t "* ^ ~5i sOiJi' '" ' ' 's S'SV kl5"‘5J>,1V' 5 t ‘ ysv:>' vtSSSVS ).b SVVf:Sv ?t:<:: fte^f.yfhs'i'JRh Stsi'SSS^S^S: y: l^ tt:bbe''. sbi;C>E':Jyy:>st jssitits.: ?v>s.^><:!' t<$S !:.x<*:S: tSyi^S'-tst WSiihbV i;V s'his<5'.:sss:«:>fj srsSbs-v;:.: lx::5<>j !.« '’.'t'sVvtsyS SS'^ SSCS^tS: b Li.K> J.'Stv^H^'S''.: 2J,4 SfMk&k: fiM fimiWi'% &L4J SmtamlM iwteytere toifrtcSut ffcttft • ihWIsti'Y SA^ tbvaVdbsb .Sf^: J>nxi;JSy:d by i;iw JXttyyyi:sr^f:’tlfvS^sn^fsb :':iy::'::Sr :'3:^y:Si-:>;>;<: tbSb-'' vt;[?b tx>.tyto;tCti:::;2S5 bb'y;:>Ct;iaf>^b 'SStsM’Sx^'v.i sti^bs.bv 0?." •'.Ss:.-><>S;Iii:’; s:s o>sr:>;ss^yyvbb'b oto:byb.ribso.. Tbs- bs'oiioosy so-svs :.y yhs y y:S-Sb OI-ORO^RtS'S t-SJ' SOOSJ'^tSyi Ot^yvrSSiOS StSs .sjvo?; tfy:S;.\y- OX:;X>re 71 rkpforefofo 3’&$S*& •y^ikW'foreOS'fij '5^;(5S frere b^j»g rexi!. ifs forerereivo frerere. TfoHr .reres oyjifocrekre re re :r?:ii;rrefotore jrexirerev'S crerrereo re.re &&&<&: * liforeix wits yrerey reoik$; pi^&i t'e^ixag’s'-'j &$ ifoxirererere Irerep* * HforeW with yfoyvmy:i foKyfth re *«&$& twteifrr' yh xii.k Horekre preyhykreoy xxfoy (preyrerere, $hori re] orey-rfo, w.TyEk- reores, rec; re Wrerereoky £g$g&^?p$ri$$f£ (sshi eTCs&g is ?2re case p*ter$, ^rekWref re.$rere rerrefootfo. ire fokfrey ;reiotsri;y xy^rfotre res rere yfre xtsp rehrereore refo frere fott.y x.rex rere oreo ;'re twwsi ;>x yrererexoore; Qxhfeiivxiy gyres' rererep v;ivh rereorere] Wres&ireii, wore? rere fore* Hrererexre rex ire foreireretre re ore fore-: ok s&yrf rerere iire ykrerefo re t>wi'5?^::;iry^^'iretyol ^reYXi'': re orereoxreyreRrekfre xrereo (Wyre:hotre rereko'-\ ore krek yrehre ireyrerev: ishfc .rexfoore-. pfore oM urerereoirej foists rreo of phyrerep y o:fo reiorerefoy sfryisg oretiHxx They ore orekky tml fo re retire fate, fo>rerere\ Sforereky S>rex o.forek x&foreoi xhfo rerefo; xfo;:; fure XreSKxifoykir*: r.refore,y> poops &re rewirere for rex io wreoHrerre rexox.ire oook re; yrextfo rexirerexyreHtfox rexs-pre 'xxfoxfoixook.io p)xoocre :':a« ste fa: rfofofoxk by fox yrereoreixoretiox of rerere refo otkxr worefrefofofo fifo.; forereox. .NSxforrettx rssins foxfooxre' resip yhoxrepre & fork-Xi-reXy reod> fox reoiox s> phoxfoix rexx xhorelwvy. foxforefox, x vxry reyixnxfoxys.. ifoxoreky orekfc .refoi ? :>:*!£ ir re^rec^y x^fokfo k*: watav. r.aa ko re;yr.fok wits fonxxuiyfeydj: - ;ir! rhe&;s«ii.< wsyykrerek '-re-fo ikomxbyk’lkfcj:ds yreis.x MPf. ifofoty ourey! ^>xrekuyc:vi>x:?rexrer:t- ikre-e re^reo Wok krere kreM' rekre'ifoxl vviik fow oicySoio, y.oox iiy reforere fj? oo:;l:;;ky\f. ore vl r:fi:rey.i;:C>: o> <0ok>'^o; ohyokyp'-y. >'yvky!.t prererefox yyyk M activity {w^ts 5ii>v^ii yy.rekk xyy'> o?Hi freikkfytx: of reio^ifk:kfi>re xkofofi, ,Wj o.yxrepk? re fko rerekyoowrei $. xxksmkre rxois b kfoorre5- Crt, CM, 5 ’ nt si m 'fV'"^ii Yre iiiHj apfiBsx. SO ,NC i< ibi. reyxreorei reo r$ ^ ir-?> SsaOH ™*^P/ HO-ak OHo-O^ ^ixa-aksfi-ISar'i fo* ^y<£-rekwxfcre> Jj«iS.SOS.- «f}!Si.ft is i!!’-a«5:RS !R Ry!i¥i;i*rsi;iij -:s>. iSSRSSiJfiiS ss SRSSSSJR, ijBilRipiRf i!VS fii'S i'SRiiiias ssRSii1} ssii TSi* ies'iijs sss> ssisSBjiiy sebf ss fcisi.s;w) SRksJiaRS tstiii saksfe i:a;>ss«Ss ai' a«?aiiii AS S |«f iiigifaiK lifiS-te ^{ifSHaiSf. rsisias. RRSkiftiSS iRSSiia *f« Rif iaaSiy tiakjS-iiiess iSX; atsAsfjjfi iskfsasi iw ysitewiaa; askaR iiiiiias; mtsaliiikim Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation