`
`By:
`
`Patrick A. Doody (patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com)
`Bryan P. Collins (bryaneollins@pillsburylaw.com)
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: (703) 770—7900
`Fax: (703) 770—7901
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVELOCK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`PATENT OWNER TEXTRON INNOVATIONS
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF ......................................................... 1
`
`II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................... 1
`
`III.ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`A. A Reply That Raises A New Issue, a-New Grounds of Rejection, And That
`Belatedly Presents New Evidence Should Be Excluded, Along With Its
`Exhibits ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`l. Petitioner’sReply ......... 7
`2. Exhibit 1018 ............................................................................................. 10
`B. The New Ground of Rejection, New Evidence, and Reply Severely
`Prejudice Patent Owner ................................................................................. 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Biedermann, No. 2013—1080, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2013) ................ 9, 14
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................ 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.23 ...................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.64 ............................................... '......................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Evid. Rule 402 ......................................................................................... 1, 12
`Fed. R. Evid. Rule 403 ......................................................................................... 1, 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767, No. 157
`Aug. 14, 2012 ........................................................................................... 7,11,13,14
`
`Administrative Proceedings
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedz‘a Ideas, IPR2013-00036 ........................................ 7
`Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B. V., IPR2013.00043 ............................................. 15
`Kyocera Corporation v. Softvz'ew, IPR2013—00004,
`IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32 ............................................................................. 7, 15
`Wavelock v. Textron Innovations, 1PR2013—00149, Paper No. 8 .............................. 3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. §42.64 and Patent Owner Textron Innovations ‘
`
`(“Textron’s”) Objections to Evidence (“Objections”) served on Petitioner
`
`Wavelock Advanced Technology Co., Ltd., (“Wavelock”) and filed with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on December 6, 2013, paper No. 18, (Copy of the
`
`Objections is attached as Exhibit 2003). Textron seeks the exclusion of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, the Second Declaration of Robert Iezzi, Ph.D., Exhibit 1018,
`
`and the improperly attached exhibits to Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration (Exhibits
`
`AA—GG). Each of these items raises a new issue, belatedly presents new evidence
`
`and presents no reason as to why the evidence was not presented when the petition
`
`was filed. The new evidence and Petitioner’s reply also are not related to the
`
`grounds of rejection adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), is
`
`prejudicial to Patent Owner, and is outside the scope of these proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, these documents should be excluded from this proceeding under the
`
`PTABs own rules, as well as at least under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 402 and Fed. R.
`
`Evid. Rule 403.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Each ofthe challenged claims of US Patent No. 6,455,138 (the “‘ 138
`
`patent”) requires first and second thermoplastic layers with a discontinuous layer
`
`positioned therebetween, in which the discontinuous layer includes “discrete
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`islands of metal in an adhesive.” Ex. 1001, at col. 9, 11. 7—9. The Petition filed on
`
`February 15, 2013, alleged that the disclosure of Kuwahara’s examples anticipated
`
`claim 1.
`
`IPR2013—00149, Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper No. (“Petition”),
`
`at 8, 9. The Petition alleged the following: “When this disclosure is illustrated as
`
`shown below,1 it is clear that Kuwahara fully anticipates claim 1.” Id. at 9. The
`
`Petition included a claim chart and alleged the following: “The vinyl chloride—
`
`Vinyl acetate copolymer resin is an adhesive between the metalized film surface
`
`and the 200 um thick vinyl chloride film. (Iezzi (Ex. 1017), 11 57.) Because the"
`
`Vinyl chloride adhesive is applied directly over the discrete islands of metal, the
`
`discrete islands of metal would be in the adhesive.” Id at 12. Paragraph 57 of Dr.
`
`Iezzi’s declaration states: “One of ordinary skill in the art would have also
`
`understood that since the adhesive (vinyl chloride—vinyl acetate copolymer resin) is
`
`applied by a coater to the Sn islands deposited on the PET film, the Sn islands are
`
`in the adhesive.” Ex. 1017, 1157, pg. 27. While not relied upon in the Petition, Dr.
`Iezzi also states: “Since the adhesive is applied on top ofthe discontinuous metal
`
`layer in a liquid state, the adhesive would inherently flow around the island metal
`
`
`
`‘The Petition reproduced an alleged illustration of examples 1 and 2 of Kuwahara
`
`from Dr. Iezzi’s declaration, Exhibit 1017, at paragraph 52, pg. 25.
`
`
`
`lPR20l 3—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`structures so that islands of metal would be in the adhesive.”2 Id at 1139, pg. 17.
`
`This is the only place in Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration where inherency is discussed, and
`
`it is NOT relied upon in the Petition or in the Decision to Institute.
`
`The Decision to Institute, Wavelock v. Textron Innovations, IPR2013-00149,
`
`Paper No. 8 (“Decision”) only refers to the examples of Kuwahara as allegedly
`
`anticipating the ‘138 patent claims. These examples only disclose a distance
`
`between the metal islands as being 500 Angstroms. Kuwahara does not disclose
`
`the use of an adhesive; rather, Dr. Iezzi alleges that the copolymer used and only
`
`described in the examples, is an adhesive, and that it was applied as a liquid to the
`
`top of the discontinuous metal layer (none of which is actually disclosed in
`
`Kuwahara’s examples). Kuwahara, Ex. 1007, at 5:14—27; Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration,
`
`Exh. 1017, at 1157.
`
`
`
`2 The Petition does not rely on this paragraph of Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration as
`
`“inherently” disclosing the discontinuous layer element of the ‘138 patent claims.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Iezzi’s statement regarding inherency is based upon an improper
`
`understanding of the law of inherency a “It also is my understanding that to
`
`establish anticipation by inherency, the extrinsic evidence must be clearly
`
`described in the reference.” Id at 1H4, pg. 5.
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner response to point out the deficiencies in
`
`Petitioner’s evidence. IPR2013—00149, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16.
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response, together with a
`
`second declaration by Dr. Iezzi.
`
`IPR2013—00149, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper No. 17
`
`and Exhibit 1018. Petitioner takes pains to criticize Patent Owner’s strategy for
`
`deciding at the last minute to file a Patent Owner Response, and as presenting only
`
`attorney argument, which it alleges is insufficient. Id at 5. If attorney argument is
`
`insufficient as Petitioner alleges, then Petitioner has expressly admitted that none
`
`of the evidence that has now been submitted was necessary. Despite this
`
`admission, nearly every statement in Petitioner’s Reply and in Dr. Iezzi’s second
`
`Declaration is new, presents new evidence, new issues, and cites new documents to
`
`support its inherent anticipation allegation, all of which should have been
`
`presented when it filed its Petition. More importantly, nearly every statement in
`the Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration is premised on. an entirely new ground
`
`of rejection ~ one that has never been proposed and was NOT adopted by the
`
`PTAB.
`
`Petitioner now alleges the claims are anticipated by Kuwahara because
`
`Kuwahara discloses a'spacing of up to 5,000 Angstroms. The Petition and the
`Decision each relied solely on the examples ofKuwahara as allegedly inherently
`
`anticipating the claims, and the examples only disclose a spacing of 500
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Angstroms. Dr. Iezzi also provides an entirely new statement regarding the law of
`
`inherent anticipation: “For a prior art reference to describe a claim element
`
`inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present.” Exh. 1018 at 116, pgs. 1
`
`and 2. The last paragraph of the Reply(pages 14 and 15) clearly establishes the
`
`fact that every argument advanced, and new issue and evidence submitted by
`
`Petitioner is presented to shore up its case in chief, thus presenting a tacit
`
`admission that the original evidence is insufficient.3
`
`Patent Owner timely served on Petitioner, and filed with the PTAB its
`
`Objections to Petitioner’s Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration, the
`
`Objections being served and filed on December 6, 2013, paper No. 18.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`A Reply That Raises A New Issue, a New Grounds of Rejection,
`And That Belatedly Presents New Evidence Should Be Excluded,
`Along With Its Exhibits
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office could not have made it any
`
`clearer that the submission of additional evidence, especially replies and evidence
`
`presenting a new issue, a new grounds of rejection, and new evidence to bolster its
`
`
`
`3This last paragraph lists 4 factors, each of which is brand new to these
`
`proceedings, and clearly is submitted because Patent Owner revealed to
`
`Petitioner the insufficiency in its originally submitted evidence.
`
`
`
`original allegation of unpatentability, is not only improper, but should be returned
`
`to Petitioner and expunged from the record:
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition. § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for
`
`decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence
`
`will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not
`
`attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples '
`
`of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include
`
`new evidence necessary to make out a prima/acie case for the
`
`patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed
`
`substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented
`
`in a prior filing.
`
`' Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767, No. 157, Aug. 14, 2012
`
`(“Trial Practice Guide”). Emphasis added. See also Blackberry Corp. v.
`
`Mobilemea’ia Ideas, IPR2013-0003 6, Paper No. 40, pg. 2: “For instance, a new
`
`issue is raised if the reply includes new evidence necessary to make out a prima
`
`facie case for the unpatentability of a challenged claim.”
`
`The PTAB also has issued a number of Orders and Decisions related to its
`
`consideration of new evidence. For example, the PTAB suggests that a motion to
`
`strike is not necessary when Petitioner submits new evidence in its reply, and that
`
`the PTAB itself will not consider such new evidence, and may return the Reply.
`
`Kyocera Corporation v. Softvz'ew, IPR2013—00004, IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32.
`
`
`
`lPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the PTAB follow its prior decisions and the
`
`Trial Practice Guide and refuse to consider Petitioner’s Reply and the second
`
`declaration of Dr. Iezzi.
`
`The evidence presented in the Second Declaration and the Reply is new
`
`evidence, it is presented in an attempt to fill the holes in its previously submitted
`
`and admittedly insufficient evidence4 so as to make out a prima facie case for the
`
`unpatentability of an original claim, and there is no legitimate reason why the
`
`evidence could not have been presented in a prior filing. Accordingly, despite the
`
`PTAB rules and the Board’s stern warnings in prior orders, Petitioner Wavelock
`
`submitted a reply that raises new issues, advances a new theory of unpatentability,
`
`and belatedly presents evidence to bolster its deficient evidence presented with its
`
`Petition. Textron addresses the Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration in turn
`
`below.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`When Wavelock filed its Petition, it submitted a 102 page declaration from
`
`Dr. Iezzi with 14 exhibit attachments. Despite the volumes of material submitted
`
`with the Petition, Petitioner and Dr. Iezzi relied on an improper understanding of
`
`
`
`4 By submitting this evidence now, the Petitioner tacitly admits its initial
`
`submission is inadequate ~ otherwise it should not be needed.
`
`
`
`IPR2013~00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`the law of inherent anticipation, made unsupported statements of fact contradicted
`
`by the examples of Kuwahara, and withheld key arguments and evidence that are
`
`apparently central to Petitioner’s positions in this proceeding. Petitioner sprung
`
`these arguments and evidence on Textron after Textron pointed out the deficiencies
`
`in their Petition and first declaration of Dr. Iezzi.
`
`There can be no doubt that the Petition relied entirely on the examples of
`
`Kuwahara, and it relied entirely on paragraph 57 of Dr. Iezzi’s first Declaration in
`
`its allegations that Kuwahara satisfies the requirement in the ‘138 patent claims
`
`that the discontinuous layer “discrete islands of metal in an adhesive.” Petition at
`
`9, 12, Exh. 1017, at fl57. There also can be no doubt that the PTAB relied
`
`exclusively on the examples of Kuwahara as satisfying this element of the claims.
`
`Decision at page 10. 5 These examples are limited to the use of a specific
`
`copolymer that is not disclosed as a liquid, and not disclosed as an adhesive (it has
`
`many other uses), and that is applied to a metallized surface having a spacing of
`
`500 Angstroms. Patent Owner therefore focused entirely on the infirmities in
`
`Petitioner’s evidence alleging inherency,_ since Petitioner did not, as a matter of
`
`5The Decision is silent with respect to inherent anticipation. The Decision does
`
`NOT rely on or otherwise make reference to Dr. Iezzi’s one sentence conclusion
`
`of inherency in para. 39.
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`law, show that the copolymer was an adhesive, was applied as a liquid, or would
`
`flow between the islands as a matter of necessity.
`
`Having realized the inadequacies of its evidence, Petitioner now attempts to
`
`introduce an entirely new rationale for its allegation of inherency. Now Petitioner
`
`contends that the disclosure of Kuwahara describing a spacing of up to 5,000
`
`Angstroms could be used (instead of the example). Reply at pages 7—13. Now
`
`Petitioner contends that for some reason the copolymer that is only used and only
`
`disclosed in the examples would somehow generally apply to Kuwahara’s general
`
`disclosure. This is clearly a new basis for the rejection, and a new ground of
`
`rejection, each of which is improper at this late stage in the proceeding. In re
`
`Biedermann, No. 2013—1080, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2013). And the Reply
`
`includes statements of fact (15—20 on pages 3 and 4 of the Reply) that rely on
`
`entirely new evidence, some of which includes documents published a decade after
`
`the ‘138 patent filing date.
`
`Simply put, the evidence upon‘which the entire Reply is premised, is new
`
`evidence necessary to make out a primafacie case for the patentability or
`
`unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence
`
`that could have been presented in a prior filing.” That the evidence is necessary
`
`is evident by it being submitted now for the very first time. The evidence and the
`
`Reply also attempt to make out a prima facie case for the unpatentability of an
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`original claim by supporting its allegation of inherent anticipation. Finally, the
`
`Petitioner presents absolutely no reason why this evidence could not have been '
`
`presented earlier ~ because it cannot -— the evidence clearly could have been
`
`presented when the Petition was filed.
`
`Neither the Patent Owner nor the PTAB should be required to sift through
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration to sort out which arguments or
`
`evidence is new or not. Indeed, the Trial Practice Guide specifically states that the
`
`“Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. Patent Owner requests that Petitioner’s Reply
`
`be excluded.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Exhibit 1018 is a second declaration from Dr. Iezzi, and it contains new
`
`evidence and relies on new exhibits, many of which are either undated, not
`
`authenticated, or dated long after the filing date of the ‘138 patent and
`
`consequently, cannot be relied upon to describe what would have been known to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Interestingly,
`
`Dr. Iezzi apparently only now has been informed as to the correct legal meaning of
`
`inherency: “For a prior art reference to describe a claim element inherently, the
`
`claim element must be necessarily present.” Exh. 1018 at 116. This is brand new
`
`and must be excluded from these proceedings.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`. Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Based on his new understanding, Dr. Iezzi now explains in paragraphs 8—30
`
`of Exhibit 1018 why or how the copolymer used in Kuwahara’s examples MIGHT
`
`flow between the metal islands formed on the first film. Once again, Dr. Iezzi
`
`never says that the copolymer must flow — only that it might, and only if it satisfies
`
`a multitude of processing parameters (viscosity, molecular weight, polymer
`
`diameter, diameter of metal spacing of 5000 Angstroms, surface tension) none of
`
`which is disclosed in Kuwahara, and none of which was mentioned in the Petition.
`
`Each of these paragraphs should be excluded for the following reasons:
`
`0 Each of these paragraphs relies on undated documents, un—
`
`authenticated documents, or documents dated after the filing date of
`
`the ‘138 patent;
`
`0 Each of these paragraphs is premised on Dr. Iezzi’s brand new
`
`understanding of the law of inherency; and
`
`o , These new paragraphs present evidence related to a rejection now
`
`alleging inherent anticipation based on a disclosure of 5000
`
`Angstroms ~ a rejection that was never advanced in the Petition, and
`
`clearly was not adopted by the PTAB in its Decision
`
`By withholding such arguments and evidence until the Reply, Petitioner has
`
`now ambushed and significantly prejudiced Textron. Petitioner’s belated efforts to
`
`introduce supporting expert testimony regarding a new theory of inherent
`
`anticipation, premised on a newfound understanding of the law of inherency, are a
`
`glaring breach of the basic rule of fairness, in clear violation of Fed. R. Evid. Rule
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`402 and Fed. R. Evid. Rule 403; in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (August 14, 2012). For
`
`these reasons, Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit 1018 should be excluded.
`
`B.
`
`The New Ground of Rejection, New Evidence, and Reply Severely
`Prejudice Patent Owner
`
`As Petitioner notes in its Reply, Patent Owner initially did not intend on
`
`filing a Patent Owner Response. The reason for this is clear. Patent Owner wished
`
`to immediately move for trial on the basis that the evidence was woefully
`
`inadequate to establish inherent anticipation (interestingly, the PTAB’s Decision to
`
`Institute fails to mention inherent anticipation). Having failed to establish that the
`
`copolymer of Kuwahara’s examples would necessarily flow in between the 500
`
`Angstrom spacing utilized in the examples, Patent Owner knew and understood
`
`that every ground of rejection advanced in the Decision must fail. Patent Owner
`
`also did not want to permit Petitioner to cure its patently defective evidence. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner initially intended on moving directly to trial.
`
`The Trial Practice Guide states, however, that a party may only present
`
`arguments at trial that have been relied upon in the papers previously submitted.
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48768, Patent Owner also understood from the
`
`Trial Practice Guide that even if it did submit its arguments pointing out the
`
`glaring deficiencies in‘Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner would not be able to
`
`present new evidence to fill in the holes and shore up its original allegation of
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`inherency.
`
`Id. at 48767; 37 C.F.R. §42.23. Accordingly, Patent Owner carefully
`
`selected its strategy not to depose the witness, not to seek any additional evidence
`
`to which Petitioner could reply, but rather only to present attorney argument as to
`
`why Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient.
`
`To permit Petitioner to now advance entirely new theories of inherent
`
`anticipation based on entirely new evidence completely defeats the purpose of the
`
`notice function, and deprives Patent Owner of its opportunity to respond as
`
`required by law. In re Biedermann et 01]., No. 2013—1080, slip 0p. at 15—17. The
`
`same prejudice exists if Petitioner were permitted to submit additional evidence
`
`and argument to shore up its initial case, and to fill in the holes that exist in its
`
`original case.
`
`Indeed, had Petitioner submitted all of the evidence it now submits,
`
`Patent Owner likely would have taken a completely different strategy — perhaps it
`
`would have deposed Dr. Iezzi and/or presented its own expert evidence.6
`
`Patent OWner has no opportunity to now respond to these new arguments
`
`and evidence, and to this new ground of rejection. See e.g., Kyocera Corporation
`
`v. Soflvz'ew, IPR2013—00004, IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32. Had they presented
`
`6 It is interesting that Petitioner has not reproduced the examples of Kuwahara to
`
`prove inherency, which would be expected in these proceedings. See e.g.,
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B. V., IPR2013.00043, and the 8 related cases.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`these arguments and evidence earlier, Patent Owner would have adopted a
`
`completely different strategy. Accordingly, a failure to exclude this evidence
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence and the PTABs own rules and guidelines would
`
`unfairly and severely prejudice Patent Owner, would deprive it of being adequately
`
`notified of the basis upon which its claims are being challenged, and would deprive
`
`Patent Owner of its opportunity to respond, as required by law.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Reply, along with Exhibit 1018 and
`
`the documents appended thereto, should be excluded.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`@013SHAWPITTMANLLP
`
`Patrick A. Doody, Reg. No. 35,022
`Bryan P. Collins, Reg. No. 43,560
`
`Date: January 22, 2014
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA. 22102
`(703) 770—7900
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.64 was served electronically via e—mail on January 22, 2014, in its
`
`entirety on the following:
`
`marjornand@mofo.corn via electronic mail, and via Express Mail to:
`
`Mehran Arjomand
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`
`mpSHAWPITTMANLLP
`
`P trick A. Doody
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 35,022
`
`Date: January 22, 2014
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`' McLean, VA. 22102
`
`(703) 770—7900
`
`15
`
`