Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00112
`Patent No. 5,779,334
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`XILINX REPLY BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. 5,779,334
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Disputed Issues of Fact ................................................................................ 2
`
`III. Admitted Facts............................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. Claim Construction...................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“light-shutter matrix system” ................................................................. 3
`
`“video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrices”...... 5
`
`“equivalent switching matrices”............................................................. 5
`
`V.
`
`Challenge No. 2: Takanashi and Lee render obvious all claims................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Takanashi teaches a light-shutter matrix system..................................... 7
`
`Takanashi and Lee teach a video controller............................................ 9
`
`Takanashi Teaches Equivalent Switching Matrices...............................10
`
`VI. Conclusion..................................................................................................12
`
`LISTING OF ADMITTED FACTS.............................................................13
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................15
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The evidence in this trial establishes that claims 1-6 and 11-14 of the ’334
`
`patent are obvious. Xilinx’s Petition explains how all of the elements of the ’334
`
`patent are taught in two prior art references, Takanashi and Lee, and why it would
`
`have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to combine these
`
`references to arrive at the claimed invention. As explained below, the record
`
`generated since Xilinx filed its Petition—in particular, the testimony of IV’s
`
`expert—confirms that the claims are invalid.
`
`IV’s Response identifies three purported distinctions between the claims of
`
`the ’334 patent and the asserted prior art references—Takanashi and Lee. None of
`
`these purported distinctions have merit.
`
`IV first argues that Takanashi does not teach a “light-shutter matrix” because
`
`it uses “continuous” elements instead of “matrix” elements. This is not a proper
`
`distinction, however, because all liquid crystal displays, including the ones in
`
`Takanashi and the ’334 patent use “continuous” liquid crystal elements, as even
`
`IV’s expert admits (XLNX-1014 (Smith-Gillespie) at 174:4-11 (“Q Is the liquid
`
`crystal layer in the ’334 and the ’545 patents a continuous layer? A Yes, it is.”)
`
`Next, IV argues that the Board should uphold the validity of the ’334 patent
`
`because the Petition mistakenly identified item 19 in the Lee reference as a “video
`
`controller.” This is also not a valid reason to uphold the ’334 patent. As IV’s
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`expert admits, “any real video projection system in 1996 would have had a video
`
`controller.” (XLNX-1014 at 206:8-11.) Moreover, IV’s argument willfully
`
`ignores the fact that items 20 and/or 21 of Lee are, indisputably, video controllers
`
`under either the Board’s construction or IV’s proposed construction.
`
`Finally, IV argues that Takanashi does not have “equivalent” switching
`
`matrices because Takashi uses color-specific (red, green, blue) components. This
`
`is also not a valid distinction. As the Board noted in its Initial Decision, Takanashi
`
`uses equivalent components because they “correspond to each other and, apart
`
`from allowing different colors of light (red, green, or blue) to pass through, appear
`
`to function in the same manner.” (XLNX-1012 at ¶ 32.) The same is true of the
`
`color filters in the ’334 patent, each of which are color-specific because they
`
`operate on a different color, but are nevertheless equivalent.
`
`Because IV’s arguments for upholding the validity of the ’334 patent all fail,
`
`and because the remaining claim elements are indisputably taught by the prior art
`
`submitted in Xilinx’s Petition, the Board should find the challenged claims of the
`
`’334 patent invalid.
`
`II.
`
`Disputed Issues of Fact
`The following factual issues are disputed:
`
`1. Does Takanashi disclose a light-shutter matrix system?
`
`2. Does the combination of Takanashi and Lee disclose a video controller?
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`3. If not, would the video controller element nevertheless have been
`
`obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in 1996?
`
`4. Does Takanashi disclose equivalent switching matrices?
`
`5. Petitioner disputes items 1, 6, and 10 in Patent Owner’s “Material Facts.”
`
`With respect to item 1, Dr. Buckman said “I didn't use video projection
`
`as an example 7 of -- of the kinds of image processing that I taught or 8
`
`that I -- or that I wrote about.” (Ex. 2010, page 44, lines 6-8). With
`
`respect to items 6 and 10, Petitioner cannot speak on behalf of the Board
`
`and, thus, cannot say that the Board did or did not rely on particular
`
`information.
`
`III. Admitted Facts
`A Listing of Admitted Facts is attached hereto.
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`There are three disputed terms: “light-shutter matrix system,” “video
`
`controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter matrix system,” and “equivalent
`
`switching matrices.” These terms were construed in the Board’s Initial Decision.
`
`As explained below, Xilinx agrees with the Board’s preliminary constructions and
`
`disagrees with IV’s proposed constructions.
`
`A.
`“light-shutter matrix system”
`Board Preliminary Construction
`IV Proposed Construction
`A set of matrices, such as monochrome
`A two-dimensional array of elements
`LCD arrays or cells of a monochrome
`that selectively admit and block light.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`LCD array, where each matrix
`comprises a rectangular arrangement of
`elements capable of limiting the passage
`of light.
`
`Xilinx agrees with the Board that a “light-shutter matrix system” in the
`
`context of the ’334 patent contains elements that are “capable of limiting the
`
`passage of light.”1 Dr. Buckman’s testimony also supports the Board’s
`
`construction. (XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 7-12.)
`
`IV’s brief notes that it proposed an alternative construction in its preliminary
`
`response. Although IV does not attempt to support its proposed construction, its
`
`brief nevertheless states that IV “does not concede the propriety of the Board’s
`
`interpretation.” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 9.) IV then continues with more than
`
`6 additional pages of argument explaining IV’s views on a variety of issues. These
`
`arguments have no bearing on how the Board should construe the term “light-
`
`shutter matrix system.” Notably, Xilinx does not repeat its arguments criticizing
`
`the Board’s similar construction in the ’545 IPR proceeding.
`
`Because IV does not attempt to support the construction from its preliminary
`
`response, the Board should disregard IV’s proposed construction and instead
`
`1 With respect to the “rectangular arrangement” aspect of the Board’s construction,
`Xilinx does not object to the construction because it does not impact the outcome
`of the trial. Xilinx notes, however, that other reasonable constructions exist that
`may be broader than the Board’s construction. (XLNX-1012 at ¶ 11.) Because the
`meaning of “matrix” does not change the outcome of this trial, Xilinx is not
`advocating for a broader construction at this time.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`follow the construction adopted in the Board’s Initial Decision.
`
`B.
`
`“video controller adapted for controlling the light-shutter
`matrices”
`Board Preliminary Construction
`A component that controls light-
`shutter matrices to facilitate the
`display of video.
`
`IV Proposed Construction
`A component that controls light-shutter
`matrices to facilitate the display of video
`in accordance with a video signal.
`
`Xilinx and Dr. Buckman agree that the claimed “video controller” is “a
`
`component that controls light-shutter matrices to facilitate the display of video.”
`
`(XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 13-14.) IV asserts that the claimed video controller must also
`
`act “in accordance with a video signal.” This construction seeks to improperly
`
`read in a limitation from the specification.
`
`IV’s construction relies on the ’334 specification at column 3, lines 36-40,
`
`which states “[a] video signal for the system is delivered from outside via link 125
`
`into a controller 122.” But this language from the specification does not—and, as
`
`a matter of substantive patent law, cannot—limit the claims. Instead, IV’s reliance
`
`on this language only highlights that its construction is improper. See, e.g., In re
`
`Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read
`
`into the claims from the specification.”).
`
`C.
`“equivalent switching matrices”
`Board Preliminary Construction
`IV Proposed Construction
`Switching matrices that are
`Switching matrices that are virtually
`corresponding or virtually identical in
`identical in function and effect.
`function or effect.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`In its Initial Decision, the Board adopted a modified version of IV’s
`
`construction of “equivalent switching matrices.” (Decision, Paper. No. 14 at 12.)
`
`IV’s construction was purportedly based on the Merriam Webster (“MW”)
`
`dictionary definition of “equivalent.” According to IV, equivalent switching
`
`matrices must be “virtually identical in function or effect.” The Board’s decision
`
`notes that IV’s reliance on the MW dictionary was appropriate, but that IV had
`
`omitted the word “corresponding” in preparing its construction. The Board
`
`accordingly modified IV’s proposed construction to be “corresponding or virtually
`
`identical in function or effect.” Xilinx agrees with the Board’s construction of
`
`“equivalent switching matrices,” because it represents the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the term. Dr. Buckman also agrees with the Board’s construction.
`
`(XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 15-17.)
`
`By omitting the word “corresponding” from its construction, IV made its
`
`construction narrower than the definition adopted by the Board. Although IV does
`
`not “concede the propriety of the Board’s interpretation,” it does not provide any
`
`arguments for why its narrow construction is the broadest reasonable one. Because
`
`IV does not attempt to support the narrow construction from its preliminary
`
`response, the Board should disregard IV’s proposed construction and instead
`
`follow the construction adopted in the Board’s initial Decision.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`V.
`
`Challenge No. 2: Takanashi and Lee render obvious all claims
`The Board’s initial decision found that, as a threshold matter, claims 1-6 and
`
`11-14 of the ’334 patent are obvious in view of Takanashi and Lee. IV raises
`
`several arguments in opposition to this Challenge, none of which have merit.
`
`A.
`Takanashi teaches a light-shutter matrix system
`IV first argues that “none of the elements of Takanashi can be reasonably
`
`construed as a ‘matrix system’ of any kind, much less a ‘light-shutter matrix
`
`system.’” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 21.) IV specifically argues that Takanashi
`
`cannot be a matrix system because it uses “continuous layers” of material rather
`
`than any “rectangular arrangement of elements into rows and columns.” (Id. at
`
`23.) But this is not a proper distinction—all sides agree that the embodiment of a
`
`light-shutter matrix system described in the specification of the ’334 patent uses a
`
`continuous liquid crystal layer. (XLNX-1012 at ¶ 21; XLNX-1014 at 174:4-11
`
`(“Q Is the liquid crystal layer in the ’334 and the ’545 patents a continuous layer?
`
`A Yes, it is.”).)
`
`Dr. Buckman explains that both Takanashi and the systems described in the
`
`’334 patent organize these continuous liquid crystal layers into physical light-
`
`shutter matrices. (XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 21, 26.) Takanashi uses a read-light/write-
`
`light liquid crystal system that persons in the art call an “optically addressed spatial
`
`light modulator” or “OASLM.” (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) In an OASLM system, an image
`
`is encoded in the liquid crystal layer using a “write light.” (Id.) This write light
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`(typically from a cathode ray tube) is focused on a layer of photosensitive material,
`
`creating an electric charge pattern corresponding to the image to be displayed. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 20-23.) In a typical OASLM system, this electric charge pattern is organized
`
`into rows and columns. This row/column image charge pattern on the
`
`photosensitive material causes the liquid crystal layer to organize itself in a row
`
`and column arrangement of the desired image.2 (Id.) This is different than a
`
`camera film, which typically does not receive pixelated light, and thus does not
`
`take on a row/column matrix form. Dr. Buckman’s testimony describes a prior art
`
`OASLM video projection system that is very similar to Takanashi and which
`
`displayed images of 1800 rows by 1024 columns at 30 frames per second. (Id. at ¶
`
`24.) Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`
`Takanashi discloses a standard OASLM system and would have understood that
`
`such an OASLM system organizes the liquid crystal layer into a physical light-
`
`shutter matrix (i.e., a row/column array of liquid crystal elements). (Id. at ¶¶ 19-
`
`2 The other type of spatial light modulator is an “electrically addressed SLM” or
`“EASLM.” EASLMs create light shutter matrices in the liquid crystal layer using
`electrical components in or on the LCD glass. (XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 27-29.) Even if
`they are arranged in a matrix formation, these electrical components are not “light
`shutter matrices” in and of themselves, because they cannot limit or selectively
`block the passage of light. (Id.) This is a subtle-yet-important distinction between
`an addressing matrix and a light-shutter matrix. The light-shutter function is
`performed by the liquid crystal component, when the liquid crystal elements are
`organized into a matrix formation. The light-shutter matrix organization may be
`performed by a CRT (e.g., in an OASLM) or by an addressing matrix (e.g., in an
`EASLM). But neither the CRT, the addressing matrix, or even the liquid crystal
`element is, by itself, a “light shutter matrix.”
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`26.)
`
`B.
`Takanashi and Lee teach a video controller
`IV also argues that Lee does not teach a video controller adapted for
`
`controlling light-shutter matrices. (Response, Paper No. 26 at 40-46.) IV is
`
`correct that the Petition mistakenly points to the “light-shutter controlling circuit
`
`19” as being the video controller. That was an error, as Dr. Buckman freely
`
`admitted at his deposition. (IV-2010 at 25:6-10.) Notwithstanding that mistaken
`
`identification, Lee does, in fact, disclose a “video controller.” The actual video
`
`controller in Lee is the LCD driver 20 and the image controlling circuit 21.
`
`(XLNX-1003 at 3:46-58; XLNX-1012 at ¶ 27.) These circuits control the images
`
`formed by the LCD panel, and thus are a “video controller adapted for controlling
`
`the light-shutter matrices.” IV’s Opposition does not address the LCD driver or
`
`the image controlling circuit, even though it is a readily-apparent part of the Lee
`
`reference. And IV’s expert intentionally chose not to express an opinion on
`
`whether Dr. Buckman is correct that elements 20 and 21 in Lee disclose a video
`
`controller. (XLNX-1013 at 99:2-20.) Mr. Smith-Gillespie does admit, however,
`
`that “any real video projection system in 1996 would have had a video controller.”
`
`(XLNX-1014 at 206:8-11.) Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have understood that Takanashi would be used with a video controller, of which
`
`one example is disclosed in Lee.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`C.
`Takanashi Teaches Equivalent Switching Matrices
`Finally, IV argues that Takanashi does not disclose equivalent switching
`
`matrices because the Takanashi “light-shutter matrix system ‘passes only specific
`
`monochrome light.’” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 30-31 (quoting XLNX-1002
`
`(Takanashi) at 18:35-36).) This is not a proper distinction between Takanashi and
`
`the ’334 patent. As Dr. Buckman explains, both Takanashi and the ’334 patent
`
`teach that each light shutter matrix in the system must operate on a different color
`
`of light. (XLNX-1012 at ¶¶ 29-30.) Moreover, claim 1 specifically requires the
`
`system to use different color filters for each of the light shutter matrices, which
`
`Takanashi indisputably does.
`
`IV nevertheless argues that Takanashi uses a “system of filters [that] is
`
`specifically described as different from equivalent monochrome LCD arrays in the
`
`specification of the ’334 patent.” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 31.) But IV’s expert
`
`has conceded that this argument is incorrect. (XLNX-1014 at 219:23-220:20.)3 IV
`
`further contends that “the specification of the ’334 patent identifies several
`
`advantages that are realized in a system which uses equivalent switching matrices .
`
`. . over systems such as Takanashi.” (Response, Paper No. 26 at 32.) Once again,
`
`however, IV’s expert conceded that this argument is “probably not accurate.”
`
`3 Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s testimony refers to paragraph 28 of his report in the ’334
`IPR, which is a nearly verbatim copy of IV’s arguments on pages 31-32 of its
`Response. (Compare XLNX-2008 at ¶ 28 with Response, Paper No. 26 at 31-32.)
`Thus, Mr. Smith-Gillespie’s admissions apply with equal force to both documents.
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`(XLNX-1014 at 220:23-222:15.) Thus, the Board should not credit IV’s argument
`
`that Takanashi does not use equivalent switching matrices.
`
`Finally, IV argues that Takanashi does not have “equivalent switching
`
`matrices” because it uses different “wavelength selection filters” for the red, green,
`
`and blue colors. This is not a valid distinction, however. As the Board noted in its
`
`Initial Decision, the Takanashi wavelength selection filters “correspond to each
`
`other and, apart from allowing different colors of light (red, green, or blue) to pass
`
`through, appear to function in the same manner.” (Decision, Paper No. 14 at 21.)
`
`IV does not dispute this description (but does dispute its application to the ’334
`
`patent).
`
`Moreover, IV’s argument fails to account for the fact that the Takanashi
`
`“wavelength selection filters” are not interchangeable with one another because
`
`they are color specific. (Response, Paper No. 26 at 34-36.) Actually, the
`
`Takanashi “wavelength selection filters” are combinations of multiple components,
`
`including color filters and spatial light modulators (including light-shutter
`
`matricies). (XLNX-1012 at ¶ 34-35.) Many of these same components are also
`
`present in the ’334 patent. The combination of these components in the ’334
`
`patent would also result in wavelength-specific elements. In fact, the claims
`
`actually require “parallel beams of light of different colors” (claim 1), which can
`
`be created by shining white light through “three color filters (claim 2).” Thus,
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Reply in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`Takanashi’s use of color-specific elements is not a distinction; in fact, it satisfies
`
`elements of the claims.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`The evidence in this proceeding demonstrates that the claims of the ’334
`
`patent are obvious and should be cancelled.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`Telephone: 214/651-5533
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`Attorney Docket No.: 42299.43
`
`Dated: October 21, 2013
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Listing of Admitted Facts for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`LISTING OF ADMITTED FACTS
`October 21, 2013
`
`Under Board Rules 42.23, and 42.24, Xilinx admits the following facts:
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Buckman has never been a member of the Society for Information
`
`Display.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Buckman did not use video projection as an example of the kinds
`
`of image processing that he taught, and he has never written about video projection
`
`systems in his publications.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Dr. Buckman did not publish any papers on liquid crystal displays.
`
`Dr. Buckman has never constructed a video projection system or a
`
`liquid crystal display.
`
`5.
`
`Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics, is not a standard reference work
`
`specifically directed at video or liquid crystal displays.
`
`6.
`
`Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, is not a standard reference
`
`work specifically directed at video or liquid crystal displays.
`
`7. With regard to Figure 7.15 in his book Guided-Wave Photonics, Dr.
`
`Buckman has not ever put a liquid crystal material on electrodes illustrated in that
`
`figure.
`
`8. Dr. Buckman does not equate spatial light modulators with a liquid
`
`crystal display.
`
`

`

`Listing of Admitted Facts for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`9.
`
`Figure 7.15 in Exhibit 1009 (Dr. Buckman’s book on Guided-Wave
`
`Photonics) uses the term “cell” to refer to a pixel, and the ‘334 patent uses the
`
`term “cell” to refer to an entire device.
`
`10.
`
`Dr. Buckman believes “cell gap” may refer to space used by wires
`
`that provide electrical addressing for a spatial light modulator system .
`
`

`

`Listing of Admitted Facts for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`October 21, 2013
`
`XLNX-1001
`
`U.S. 5,779,334 to Kikinis
`
`XLNX-1002
`
`U.S. 5,264,951 to Takanashi
`
`XLNX-1003
`
`U.S. 5,287,131 to Lee
`
`XLNX-1004
`
`U.S. 5,777,796 to Burstyn
`
`XLNX-1005
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. Under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68
`
`XLNX-1006
`
`Curriculum vitae of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D.
`
`XLNX-1007
`
`File History of U.S. 5,779,334 to Kikinis
`
`XLNX-1008
`
`Supplemental Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D.
`
`XLNX-1009
`
`Excerpt from A. Bruce Buckman, Guided-Wave Photonics
`(1992)
`
`XLNX-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,136,397 to Miyashita
`
`XLNX-1011
`
`XLNX-1012
`
`XLNX-1013
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68 directed to the proposed substitute claims
`
`Declaration of A. Bruce Buckman, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68 directed to reply
`
`Deposition Transcript Of Robert Smith-Gillespie Vol. 1
`(August 29, 2013)
`
`XLNX-1014
`
`Deposition Transcript Of Robert Smith-Gillespie Vol. 2
`
`XLNX-1015
`
`Excerpts from Spatial Light Modulator Technology (Uzi
`Efron ed., Marcel Dekker 1995)
`
`

`

`Listing of Admitted Facts for Inter Partes Review of U.S. 5,779,334
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`XILINX, INC, Petitioner
`v.
`Patent of INTELLECTUAL VENTURES MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 5,779,334
`Issue Date: July 14, 1998
`Title: ENHANCED VIDEO PROJECTION SYSTEM
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00112
`_____________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service October 21, 2013
`
`Manner of service FEDERAL EXPRESS
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Reply In Support Of Petition, including
`Petitioner’s Listing of Admitted Facts;
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List (10/21/2013); and
`Exhibits XLNX-1010 through XLNX-1015
`Persons served GEORGE E. QUILLIN
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`3000 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 600
`WASHINGTON DC 20007-5109
`gquillin@foley.com
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`