Ex Parte Roitman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2009

10987081 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LIPA LEON ROITMAN
____________

Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 March 26, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge GAUDETTE.

Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge WARREN.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-20 (Final Office Action, mailed February
17, 2006), the only claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to compositions for bonding an elastomer
substrate to another substrate (Spec. 1:4-5) and to a bonded article
comprising an elastomer (claim 9). Claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 are illustrative
of the subject matter on appeal, and are reproduced from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed August 22, 2007:
1. A composition comprising at least one haloalkadiene grafted
polymer, at least one multi-hydroxyl aromatic compound, and
at least one polyisocyanate, wherein said composition is
capable of bonding an elastomer substrate to at least one other
substrate.

11. The composition of claim 1, wherein the amount of phenolic
resin in said composition is 0.2% or less by weight based on the
total weight of said composition.

13. The composition of claim 11;

further comprising at least one methylene donor compound;

further comprising at least one vulcanizing agent selected
from the group consisting of selenium, sulfur, tellurium,
compounds thereof, alloys thereof, and mixtures thereof;

wherein said haloalkadiene grafted polymer comprises at
least one product of reacting at least one halogenated
cyclic conjugated alkadiene with at least one
2
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

unsaturated polydiene that comprises 50% or more
butadiene units by weight based on the weight of said
unsaturated polydiene;
wherein said multi-hydroxyl aromatic compound comprises
resorcinol; and

wherein said polyisocyanate comprises at least one
polymeric polyisocyanate.

16. The composition of claim 1, wherein the amount of unsaturated
elastomer crosslinker in said composition is 0.01% or less by
weight based on the total weight of said composition.

The Examiner relies on the following evidence to establish
unpatentability (Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed December 14, 2007):
Findley 3,640,941 Feb. 08, 1972
Warren 5,128,403 Jul. 07, 1992
Compounding Ingredients Limited (CIL) WO 98/3660 June 4, 1998
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection (App.
Br. 7):
1. claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Warren in view of Compounding Ingredients Limited (“CIL”);
2. claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over CIL in view of Findley; and
3. claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
CIL in view of Findley, and further in view of Warren.
Appellant presents arguments with respect to the following groups of
claims: claims 1-10 (App. Br. 8-15); claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 (App. Br. 15-
16); claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 (App. Br. 16-17); claim 13 (App. Br. 17); and
claim 18 (App. Br. 18). Accordingly, we decide the appeal as to the first
ground of rejection on the basis of claim 1, as to the second ground of
3
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

rejection on the basis of claims 11 and 16, and as to the third ground of
rejection on the basis of claims 13 and 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of Appellant’s invention to include an isocyanate as an
ingredient in Warren’s composition?
We answer this question in the negative.
2. Has Appellant shown reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the combined teachings of CIL, Findley, and Warren
disclose or suggest a composition which does not contain phenolic resin or
unsaturated elastomer crosslinker?
We also answer this question in the negative.
FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Claim Interpretation
1. Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) provides the following
definitions for limitations found in one or more of appealed claims 1, 11, 13,
16 and 18:
a. haloalkadiene grafted polymer (claims 1, 11, 13, 16 and 18) -
“the product or products of reacting at least one halogenated
conjugated alkadiene with at least one unsaturated polymer”
(Spec. 5:17-19). According to the Specification, “[s]uch
reactions are generally believed to be Diels-Alder reactions.
One description of such reactions is given in US 5,128,403
4
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

[Warren]” (Spec. 5:19-22). The Specification identifies
“hexachlorocylcopentadiene” as a “suitable halogenated
conjugated cyclic alkadiene” (Spec. 6:6-7) and “polybutadiene”
as a “useful unsaturated polymer” (Spec. 6:8, 14).
b. multi-hydroxyl aromatic compound (claims 1, 11, 13, 16 and
18) - “any compound that contains an aromatic ring . . . with
two or more hydroxyl groups” (Spec. 8:21-22, 24-26).
According to the Specification, “[r]esorcinol is known to be one
useful multi-hydroxyl aromatic compound” (Spec. 9:6-7).
c. polyisocyanate (claims 1, 11, 13, 16 and 18) – “a compound
bearing at least two isocyanate groups” (Spec. 9:16). The
Specification identifies “2,4-toluene diisocyanate” as a suitable
polyisocyanate (Spec. 9:19-20).
d. methylene donor compound (claims 13 and 18) - “a compound
capable of forming at least one methylene bridge or linkage by
reacting with at least one hydroxyl group on another
compound” (Spec. 10:29-11:3). The Specification identifies
“hexamethylene tetramine” as a “suitable methylene donor
compound” (Spec. 11:7-8).
e. phenolic resin (claims 11 and 13) – “condensation products of
one or more aldehydes with one or more phenolic compounds”
(Spec. 12:18-19).
f. unsaturated elastomer crosslinker (claims 16 and 18)–
“unsaturated compounds that, when reacted with elastomers,
5
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

sometimes lead to crosslinking of the elastomer” (Spec. 12:24-
26).
2. According to the Specification, in making the compositions of
the present invention,
the ingredients may be combined by any of a wide variety of
methods. For example, ingredients may be added in various
orders. In some embodiments, two or more ingredients are
selected and pre-combined; that is, before the selected
ingredients are added to the remainder of the ingredients, the
selected ingredients are mixed together and, optionally, heated
together, or, optionally, stored together, or, optionally, mixed
and heated and stored together, with or without stirring. For
example, in some embodiments, at least one haloalkadiene
grafted polymer is mixed with at least one polyisocyanate,
heated to a temperature of 35ºC or higher, and kept at that
temperature for one hour or longer; the result of this mixing and
heating is subsequently added to other ingredients of the
composition.
(Spec. 14:16-27.)
Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Warren in view of CIL
3. Warren
discloses an adhesive that is described as bonding metal to
elastomer; as containing a Diels-Alder adduct of
perhalogenated cyclic conjugated diene and an unsaturated
dienophile; as containing a phenolic resin, an aromatic
hydroxy compound, a formaldehyde donor, an unsaturated
crosslinker, a vulcanizing agent, and a metal oxide; and as
resistant to corrosive agents
(Spec. 1:12-17).
6
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

4. Warren describes the adhesive as “predominantly utiliz[ing]
environmentally acceptable components,” able to “withstand elevated
temperature bonding conditions,” and “exhibit[ing] excellent resistance to
high temperature fluid environments and corrosive conditions” (col. 2, ll. 15-
20).
5. According to Warren, “[t]he . . . adhesive composition contains
a Diels-Alder adduct” which “is formed by reacting at least one halogenated
cyclic conjugated diene and at least one polyalkadiene dienophile having a
high vinyl content” (col. 2, ll. 20-25 and 43-46). According to Warren,
“[t]he halogenated cyclic dienes are readily prepared by well-known
methods and at least one, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, is a wellknown [sic,
well known] article of commerce” (col. 3, ll. 11-14). Warren discloses that
the polyalkadiene dienophile “can be unmodified, e.g., polybutadiene, . . . or
modified, as by having hydroxyl or carboxyl termination and including
chain-extended hydroxyl-terminated and carboxyl-terminated polymeric
materials” (col. 3, l. 66-col. 4, l. 3). According to Warren, the polyalkadiene
dienophiles are characterized by high molecular weight which can be
modified by conventional chain extension techniques (col. 3, ll. 43-46, and
col. 4, ll. 31-38). According to Warren, “[c]hain extending reaction
conditions are wellknown [sic, well known] in the art. . . . As an example of
such reaction conditions, the chain extension of a dihydroxy polyalkadiene
prepolymer with a diisocyanate chain-extender such as 2,4-toluene
diisocyanate is effected at room temperature or at a moderately elevated
temperatures” (col. 4, ll. 38-44). Warren states that “[a] full description of
the chain extension of reactive substituted polyalkadiene dienophiles,
including representative chain extending compounds, is found in Polaski
7
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

U.S. Pat. No. 3,894,982, particularly from Col. 5, line 16 through Col. 8, line
51, which disclosure is incorporated herein by reference” (col. 4, ll. 50-56).
6. CIL “relates to adhesives, particularly, but not exclusively to
adhesives for bonding elastomers such as polyurethane, particularly to
rubber, and to the manufacture of automobile [tires] and retreads using such
adhesives” (p. 1, 1st para.). CIL specifically teaches an adhesive comprising
a highly chlorinated Diels-Alder adduct of hexachlorocyclopentadiene and
polybutadiene (p. 2) and an isocyanate (p. 3).
7. The Examiner finds that Warren discloses an adhesive
composition as claimed in claim 1 with the exception of a polyisocyanate
component. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner further finds that the isocyanates in
CIL “serve to provide crosslinking to polyurethane elastomer substrates and
improve flexibility and dynamic fatigue resistance in the adhesive layer.”
(Id.) The Examiner contends that “it would have been prima facie obvious
to include polyisocyanate materials in the adhesive compositions of
Warren’s invention to improve adhesion to polyurethane elastomer
substrates and/or to improve flexibility and dynamic fatigue resistance to the
adhesives.” (Id.)
8. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to add polyisocyanate to Warren’s composition based
on CIL’s disclosure because: (1) the effect on the corrosion resistance
property of Warren’s composition was unknown and (2) dynamic fatigue
resistance was not a property essential to the proper function of Warren’s
composition. (Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed February 11, 2009, 3-4.)
Appellant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
8
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

been motivated to add an isocyanate compound to Warren’s composition
because Warren expressly teaches a composition containing “non-toxic,
environmentally acceptable components.” (Id. at 5 (quoting Warren, col. 2,
ll. 3-7).)
9. The Examiner maintains that the above-cited disclosure in
Warren establishes that Warren “suggests isocyanate compounds in any
capacity to form the compounds in the adhesive” and “does not consider
isocyanate compounds as toxic” (Ans. 7).
10. Appellant concedes that Warren teaches the use of isocyanates
as a reactant, but maintains that “Warren makes no teaching or suggestion
that isocyanate compounds themselves exist in his adhesive” (Reply Br. 5).
In support of this contention, Appellant relies on the chemical structure
identified in Polaski as the product of the reaction between hydroxyl-
substituted polyalkadiene and 2,4 – toluene diisocyanate (App. Br. 14 (citing
Polaski, col. 8, ll. 7-63)). In particular, Appellant notes that “the structure
shows repeating urethane groups but no isocyanate groups.” (App. Br. 14.)
Rejection of claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over CIL in view of Findley
and
Rejection of claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over CIL in view of Findley, and further in view of Warren

11. Findley discloses an adhesive composition which “is
particularly useful for bonding vulcanizable rubber to metal surfaces” (col.
1, ll. 12-13) comprising a “a graft polymer formed from the combination of
9
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

polybutadiene or halogenated polybutadiene and substituted cyclopentadiene
monomer” and “dibasic lead phosphite” (col. 1, ll. 14-16). Findley discloses
that a suitable “substituted cyclopentadiene” is “hexachlorocyclopentadiene”
which produces a bond several times stronger than the bond resulting from
the use of cyclopentadiene (col. 3, ll. 29-33). Findley states that the dibasic
lead phosphite is used as an acid acceptor and corrosion inhibitor (col. 3, ll.
44-45). According to Findley, “[t]he inclusion of resorcinol in this adhesive
results in a substantial improvement in its bonding characteristics as
compared with the adhesion of the graft polymer and dibasic lead phosphite
alone” (col. 3, ll. 71-74). Findley discloses that a formaldehyde donor, such
as “hexamethylenetetramine” may be included in the adhesive composition
to enhance adhesion (col. 4, ll. 51-53). According to Warren, “[w]hile
[Findley’s] composition avoids the use of aromatic nitroso compounds, it
requires the utilization of a lead-containing compound which can be
detrimental to the environment and hazardous to the health of persons
handling the adhesive composition” (col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l. 2).

12. The Examiner finds that CIL discloses a composition as
claimed in claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 with the exception of a multi-
hydroxyl aromatic compound (see claim 1) and a methylene donor
compound. (See Ans. 5.) The Examiner further finds that “Findley teaches
adhesive compositions for bonding rubber to substrates, where resorcinol
and methylene donor compounds are added to a halogenated graft polymer
to improve the adhesion (abstract; col. 3 line 71-col. 4 line 65)” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner contends that “it would have been prima facie obvious to
10
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

include the resorcinol and methylene donor compounds in the adhesives of
[CIL] to increase the adhesion of the elastomer substrates”. (Id.).
13. Appellant argues that neither CIL nor Findley, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests adhesive compositions with little or no
phenolic resin (claim 11) or with little or no unsaturated elastomer
crosslinker (claim 16). (App. Br. 16.)
14. The Examiner contends that CIL does not require the use of
phenolic resins or unsaturated elastomer crosslinkers. (Ans. 8.)
15. The Examiner relies on Warren for a teaching of the claimed
vulcanizing agents. (Ans. 5.)
16. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s contention that
Warren discloses the claimed vulcanizing agents, but argues that Warren
teaches away from a composition containing phenolic resin (claim 13) and
unsaturated elastomer crosslinker (claim 18) in the amounts claimed. (App.
Br. 17-18.)
17. Appellant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined Warren or Findley with CIL since the first two
references are directed to adhesives for bonding to metal, while CIL is
directed to bonding polyurethane elastomers to rubber (see App. Br. 8-9, 15,
and 17-18).
18. Warren states that “[a]lthough the adhesives . . . are preferred
for bonding elastomeric materials to metal, the present adhesive
compositions may be applied . . . to any surface or substrate capable of
11
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

receiving the adhesive” (col. 7, ll. 42-46). Findley’s composition is said to
be useful in bonding both rubber to metal and rubber to rubber (col. 8, ll. 53-
55).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During examination, claims terms must be given “their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with
the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright,
165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons
of skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because
patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks
to “those sources available to the public that show what a
person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim
language to mean.” Those sources include “the words of the
claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the
state of the art.”

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d
1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal cites omitted)).
"[A] reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability"
supports a conclusion of obviousness. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 896-97
(Fed. Cir. 1985). While “it can be important to identify a reason that would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does”, an obviousness
12
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

“analysis need not seek out precise teachings [in the prior art] directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). In considering the question of the
obviousness of a claimed invention in view of the prior art relied upon, we
are guided by the basic principle that the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
“not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” See
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807-08 (Fed. Cir.
1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not . . .
that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of
the references.”). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR 127 S. Ct. at 1742. See also, DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our suggestion test is in actuality quite
flexible and not only permits, but requires, consideration of common
knowledge and common sense”).

ANALYSIS
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is directed to a composition which is “capable of bonding an
elastomer substrate to at least one other substrate.” Interpreting this
language in light of the Specification and claims, we determine that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 reads on a composition,
prepared by pre-combining some of the recited ingredients, which are
13
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

ultimately capable of forming an adhesive bond by reaction and/or other
processing (e.g., mixing, heating, and the like) of the recited ingredients.
Our interpretation is based on the language found on pages 14-15 of the
Specification which states, for example, that two or more ingredients may be
selected and pre-combined. Specifically, the Specification describes mixing
the haloalkadiene grafted polymer with the polyisocyanate, heating to a
temperature of 35 ºC or higher and holding at that temperature to produce a
product which is then added to other ingredients of the composition. (See
FF 2.)
Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Warren in view of CIL

Appellant asserts that Warren teaches against including an isocyanate
in the final adhesive composition because of its toxicity. (FF 8.) Appellant
also asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to include an isocyanate in Warren’s adhesive composition
because it might adversely effect corrosion resistance of the adhesive. (FF
8.) Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based on an
improper interpretation of claim 1 as limited to a final adhesive composition.
As explained above, we interpret claim 1 as broadly including
intermediate compositions used to form a final adhesive composition, e.g., a
composition prepared by pre-combining an isocyanate with a haloalkadiene
grafted polymer prior to addition of the other recited ingredients. Appellant
argues that Warren fails to disclose or suggest the presence of an isocyanate
compound in the final adhesive composition. (FF 10.) However, Appellant
has not explained why claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of the
14
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

Warren/CIL combination since, as acknowledged by Appellant (FF 10),
Warren discloses the use of isocyanates as a reactant in forming a final
adhesive composition. In other words, Appellant’s arguments regarding a
teaching away from including, or lack of motivation to include isocyanate in
a final adhesive composition, fail to address the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to have included isocyanate in a pre-
combination of ingredients used in a composition which is capable of
forming an adhesive (see FF 7 and 9). Therefore, Appellant’s contentions
fail to establish error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
Rejection of claims 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over CIL in view of Findley
and
Rejection of claims 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over CIL in view of Findley, and further in view of Warren
Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us of reversible error on the
part of the Examiner in rejecting claims 11-20. Appellant argues that neither
CIL, Findley, nor Warren, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests
adhesive compositions with little or no phenolic resin or with little or no
unsaturated elastomer crosslinker. However, Appellant has not directed us
to any teaching in CIL, i.e., the primary reference relied upon by the
Examiner, which establishes that CIL’s compositions necessarily include
phenolic resins or unsaturated elastomer crosslinkers. Nor has Appellant
otherwise explained why the Examiner erred in finding that CIL does not
require the inclusion of phenolic resins.

15
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness determination. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1-20 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

16
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge, Concurring:
I concur with and join in the decision of the majority of this panel to
affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner. I separately address only
Appellants’ contention that Warren would have taught away from including
CIL’s polyisocyanates in Warren’s adhesive compositions. App. Br. 11-14;
Reply Br. 4-6.
Appellants submit no contention establishing that one of ordinary skill
in this art would have been led away from combining Warren and CIL as a
matter of chemistry. Indeed, whether one of ordinary skill in this art would
consider polyisocyanates “environmentally” acceptable or unacceptable
depends solely on that person’s perspective. Furthermore, even if this
person did consider polyisocyanates “environmentally” unacceptable, this
person could still make the scientific decision to include polyisocyanates in
Warren’s composition as a matter of chemistry as it is known that
polyisocyanates are useful in such compositions. Cf., e.g., In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“We share Gurley’s view that a person
seeking to improve the art of flexible circuit boards, on learning from
Yamaguchi that epoxy was inferior to polyester-imide resins, might well be
led to search beyond epoxy for improved products. However, Yamaguchi
also teaches that epoxy is usable and has been used for Gurley’s purpose.”).
Thus, Warren provides no disclosure which would have discouraged
one of ordinary skill in this art from modifying Warren’s compositions by
the addition of CIL’s polyisocyanates, which results in compositions falling
within appealed claim 1. See, e.g. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (prior art “disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the solution claimed”).
1
Appeal 2008-6120
Application 10/987,081

ssl

ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY
PATENT DEPARTMENT
100 INDEPENDENCE MALL WEST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-2399

2