`Reg. No. 42,557
`
` Paper No. 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CASE IPR2016-01510
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Tokyo Electron Limited
`EXHIBIT 1017
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................ii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent ................................................................... 2
`
`III. Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Selected Thermal Mass ..................................................................... 5
`
`B. Selection of Thermal Mass for Predetermined
`Temperature Change Within a Specific Interval ............................... 6
`
`C. Incropera and Anderson .................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Dependent Claims ................................................................................ 12
`
`V. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 718 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)............................................................................ 12
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)............................................................................ 12
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) .............................................................. 7
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the inventor and sole owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel, submits this preliminary
`
`response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 and asks that the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`Board decline to institute inter partes review on the instant petition because the
`
`petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Samsung is not the first party to challenge the validity of the ‘264 patent
`
`through
`
`inter partes review.
`
` Lam Research Corp. sells tools used in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing to entities such as Samsung. Dr. Flamm has
`
`accused Samsung of using the tools it purchased from Lam and others in a manner
`
`that infringes the methods claims in the ‘264 patent.
`
`In addition to commencing an action for declaratory judgment in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, Lam asserted seven
`
`petitions for
`
`inter partes review of
`
`the ‘264 patent.
`
` See Case Nos.
`
`IPR2015-01759;
`
`IPR2015-01764;
`
`IPR2015-01766;
`
`IPR2015-01768;
`
`IPR2016-0468; IPR2016-0469; and IPR2016-0470. 1 The Board instituted trial
`
`on only two of those petitions, IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768 and denied to
`
`
`1 A chart summarizing the claims of the ‘264 patent to which Lam’s seven
`petitions were directed is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`institute on the remaining five.
`
`Independent claim 13 of the ‘264 patent and the claims that depend from it
`
`(i.e., claims 14-26 and 64-65) were the subject of both IPR2015-01759 and
`
`IPR2016-0468. The Board declined to institute on either of those petitions.
`
`Samsung does not assert anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Instead, the
`
`sole contention of invalidity of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is based on a
`
`combination of three references, Okada I, Incropera, and Anderson. Samsung
`
`relies on sixteen additional references (many of which were also cited by Lam) for
`
`the assertion of invalidity of the claims that depend from claim 13.
`
`As demonstrated below, Samsung fails to identify any combination of prior
`
`art that teaches all of the elements of claim 13. For that reason, the Board should
`
`not institute inter partes review with respect to that claim or any claim that
`
`depends from that claim.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent
`
`The invention set forth in the ‘264 patent provides a method “for etching a
`
`substrate,” including “a chamber and a substrate holder,” the latter having “a
`
`selected thermal mass to facilitate changing the temperature of the substrate to be
`
`etched.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract.) Such change is “from a first temperature to a
`
`second temperature within a characteristic time period.” (Id.) While methods
`
`involving the use of various temperatures for manufacturing semiconductors were
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`known in the art prior to the ‘264 patent, none of the prior art discloses the
`
`selection of the thermal mass of the substrate holder to provide for a predetermined
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.
`
`Claim 13 generally covers a “method of etching a substrate in the
`
`manufacture” of semiconductors where there are two etching steps, each at a
`
`different temperature, and where the “thermal mass of the substrate holder is
`
`selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific time interval.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:50-51, 21:1-3.) In essence, the thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder, which controls the temperature of the substrate, is selected as a function of
`
`the specific time interval between the first and second etching steps and the
`
`temperature differential between the first and second etching steps.
`
`The improvement over the prior art and some of the benefits of the patented
`
`invention are recited in the specification. The invention:
`
`overcomes serious disadvantages of the prior methods in which
`throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive
`device damage to the workpiece . . . [and] utilizes temperature
`changes to achieve high etch rates while simultaneously maintaining
`high etch selectivity between a layer which being pattered or removed
`other material layers [sic].
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:11-14, 2:31-34.)
`
`In a nutshell, Moore’s law is accommodated while maintaining high etch
`
`selectivity of the horizontal layers.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`III. Claim 13
`
`Ground 1 is the only ground levied by Samsung against independent claim
`
`13. Samsung, however, fails to identify any prior art that teaches the ultimate
`
`element of claim 13. Accordingly, there is no basis to invalidate that claim or any
`
`claim that depends from it. See Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718,
`
`727 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that for claimed subject matter to be obvious either
`
`the prior art references must expressly reach each claim element exactly or else the
`
`record must disclose a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`prior art teachings to obtain the claimed invention).
`
`The first element following the preamble of claim 13 reads: “placing a
`
`substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a chamber, the substrate
`
`holder having a selected thermal mass.” (Ex. 1001 at 20:52-:54.) The ultimate
`
`element of that claim reads:
`
`wherein the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a
`predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`during processing; the predetermined temperature change comprises
`the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the
`selected second substrate holder temperature, and the specified time
`interval comprises the time for changing from the selected first
`substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`temperature.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:1-:10.) To meet these elements, Samsung relies on the
`
`combination of Okada I, Incropera, and Anderson.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`A.
`
`Selected Thermal Mass
`
`“placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a
`chamber, the substrate holder having a selected thermal mass”
`
`Okada I fails to show or suggest any substrate holder having a “selected
`
`thermal mass.” There is no thermal mass taught, shown or implied in Okada I.
`
`At most, Okada I teaches a substrate holder, but does not teach anything about a
`
`substrate holder having the claimed selected thermal mass, as required by claim 13
`
`of the ‘264 patent.
`
`In fact, Okada I teaches away from this limitation of claim 13. Rather than
`
`focusing on the thermal mass of the substrate holder—about which Okada I has
`
`nothing to say—Okada I teaches reliance on its upstream coolant controllers to
`
`enable “excellent temperature control responsiveness in the electrode,” i.e.,
`
`substrate holder. (Ex. 1006 ¶ [0021].) Specifically, in discussing the “plurality of
`
`coolant tanks,” Okada I teaches that:
`
`the
`temperature controlling devices for controlling
`there are
`temperatures of the individual coolant tanks individually, enabling
`excellent temperature control responsiveness in the electrode, making
`it possible to change the temperature of the semiconductor substrate
`efficiently . . . .”
`
`(Id.) In fact, the explicit thrust of Okada I’s invention is the controlling devices
`
`on the cooling tanks for controlling the coolant temperature:
`
`The present invention relates to a semiconductor controlling device,
`and, in particular, relates to a temperature controlling system for
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`controlling the temperature of an electrode on which a semiconductor
`substrate is placed in a dry etching apparatus.
`
`(Id. ¶ [0001].) Okada I confirms this in reciting the object of his invention:
`
`“The object of the present invention is to provide a dry etching apparatus able to
`
`provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control of the electrode.” (Id. ¶
`
`[0007].) As stated, the ultimate object of Okada I is “to provide adequate
`
`responsiveness in temperature control of the electrode,” i.e., the substrate holder,
`
`by using his multiple cooling tanks and controllers. Likewise, one of the ultimate
`
`objects of Flamm is to provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control in
`
`the substrate holder, but employing, inter alia, the selected thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder.
`
`
`
`A skilled artisan starting with Okada I would not recognize
`
`the
`
`responsiveness
`
`in
`
`temperature control
`
`in
`
`the
`
`substrate holder as a
`
`problem—because that is the very problem that Okada I purports to have solved.
`
`Given that the responsiveness problem was solved, there would be no
`
`motivation for a skilled artisan to combine Okada I with Incropera or any other
`
`prior art relating to responsiveness of temperature control.
`
`B.
`
`for Predetermined
`Selection of Thermal Mass
`Temperature Change Within a Specific Interval
`
`“the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a
`predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`during processing; the predetermined temperature change comprises
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the
`selected second substrate holder temperature, and the specified time
`interval comprises the time for changing from the selected first
`substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`temperature”
`
`This final limitation of claim 13 expands upon the thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder, specifying that the thermal mass “is selected for a predetermined
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.”
`
`In denying one of Lam’s petitions for inter partes review directed toward
`
`claim 13, the Board, after criticizing Lam for attempting to improperly split the
`
`elements of claim 13 into unreasonably small phrases to justify its patchwork of
`
`prior art references, identified the essence of claim 13:
`
`In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal mass of
`the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time. The claim language
`requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed
`into separate elements met individually. In other words, the thermal
`mass must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined
`temperature change within a specific interval of time (for example, a
`change of 10°C per minute).
`
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 p. 17. Just as with Lam’s petition, the prior art relied on
`
`by Samsung, Okada I, fails to teach those interdependent elements.
`
`Despite Samsung’s assertion that Okada I “discloses that during the etch
`
`process, the temperature . . . is changed . . . in ‘between 2 to 10 seconds’” (Pet. p.
`
`26-27), Okada I teaches no such thing. All Okada I teaches is that one of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`benefits of using his temperature control system is that “[t]he time required for the
`
`electrode 25 to change from temperature A to B is between 2 and 10 seconds.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶ [0016].) There is no predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific time interval shown or suggested.
`
`All Okada I teaches is a three coolant tank system that is capable of swift
`
`change of temperature—i.e., between 2 and 10 seconds—but says nothing about
`
`selecting the thermal mass for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`particular time interval. The whole point of Okada I was to design a system in
`
`which the time to change the temperature was reduced. (See Ex. 1006 ¶¶
`
`[0005]-[0008].)
`
` Okada I solves
`
`the prior art problem of
`
`temperature
`
`“responsiveness.” (Id. ¶ [0007].) Okada I describes the processing time for an
`
`individual substrate under the prior art as “between about 1 and 5 minutes,” which
`
`is described as “poor, and thus has not been reduced to practice.” (Id. ¶ [0006]).
`
`The object of the invention claimed in Okada I was to “provide a dry etching
`
`apparatus able to provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control of the
`
`electrode.” (Id. ¶ [0007].) There is no mention in Okada I of any selection of a
`
`time interval; Okada I only teaches a “faster” process. The 2 to 10 second range
`
`taught in Okada is not “a specific interval of time,” it is mere speculation, not
`
`supported by any data.
`
`Okada I teaches nothing about structure, thermal mass, conductivity, fluid
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`flow, or even heating an electrode. Okada I only concerns cooling, and Okada I
`
`does not teach ways or considerations to select a thermal mass of an electrode for a
`
`predetermined temperature change within a specific time interval.
`
`Adding Incropera does not remedy the problem. At its core, Incropera
`
`simply stands for the rudimentary proposition that lower thermal mass results in
`
`the ability to change temperatures more rapidly than high thermal mass. Neither
`
`Okada I, Incropera, nor both of them combined teaches the selection of the thermal
`
`mass of the substrate holder for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time.
`
`C.
`
`Incropera and Anderson
`
`In any event, Samsung’s reliance on Incropera is misplaced.
`
`Samsung relies primarily on Incropera’s Equation 5.6. (See Pet. at 27-28.)
`
`That equation, however, does not disclose the heat transfer system and process of
`
`claim 13. Instead, Equation 5.6 describes the change in temperature of a solid
`
`body immersed in a liquid that stays at a temperature T∞, subject to an assumption
`
`that the temperature of the entire body is always uniform, which is equivalent to
`
`assuming that the body has infinite thermal conductivity or that resistance to heat
`
`being transferred into the body <heat transfer coefficient h> is small compared to
`
`the resistance to heat transfer within the body. (See Ex. 1007 p. 227.) That is
`
`why Incropera refers to what the equation describes as the “lumped capacitance
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`method.”
`
`Even if Incropera’s Equation 5.6 was adaptable to describe a heat transfer
`
`device to change the temperature of a substrate holder, as required by claim 13,
`
`Samsung’s argument is deficient because the time for a temperature change
`
`described by Equation 5.6 and Figure 5.2 depends upon and requires on the ratio of
`
`the product of p, c and V to hAs (where hAs is the product of the heat transfer
`
`resistance and heat transfer area at the boundary of the body) and T∞ (the
`
`temperature of a surrounding fluid). For example: dT/dt = exp[RATIO ] x
`
`[RATIO] x [Ti - T∞] where "RATIO" is the quantity in the brackets of Equation
`
`5.6.
`
`It is not possible to define a thermal mass for a rate of temperature change
`
`without predetermining the rate of change that is necessary and defining a value of
`
`hAs. The rate of change of the temperature also depends on T∞. Samsung’s
`
`assertion that “equation 5.6 can be used to select the thermal mass by filling in the
`
`temperature . . . and time” (Pet. at 15) is deficient at least because there is nothing
`
`disclosed to determine a value of hAs and because the necessary value also
`
`depends on T∞.2 The flow rate and temperature of the fluid are crucial because
`
`the fluid temperature can change as it moves in the channels with the substrate
`
`
`2 Although Equation 5.6 does not “fit,” this value is crudely similar to the
`temperature of the fluid in some embodiments.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`holder structure—i.e., the fluid in the ‘264 patent receives heat and its temperature
`
`changes as it flows through the substrate holder in an embodiment. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 17:24-43.)
`
`In fact, the ‘264 patent discloses, in one embodiment, that fluid flow rate,
`
`coolant-side fluid temperature, etc., “should be designed using conventional means
`
`to permit the heater . . . to predetermined temperatures within specified time
`
`intervals and within specified uniformity limits. (Ex. 1001 at 16:60-67.)
`
`Unlike the infinitely conductive body described by Incropera in Equation 5.6, the
`
`‘264 patent does not require the entire substrate holder to be at a single
`
`temperature. As disclosed by the ‘264 patent, it is the upper surface of the
`
`substrate holder that determines the wafer temperature. (Ex. 1001 at 15: 27-30.)
`
`Anderson, also relied on by Samsung, actually teaches away from focusing
`
`on the thermal mass of the substrate holder. It teaches employment of a “low
`
`thermal mass heater” (see Ex. 1008 at 6:27-:28), but fails to recognize the use of a
`
`low thermal mass for the substrate holder. For that, Anderson’s preferred
`
`embodiment is “stainless steel.” (Id. at 5:41-:42.)
`
`IV. Dependent Claims
`
`The instant Petition is directed toward independent claim 13 and each of its
`
`dependent claims, i.e., claims 14-26, and 64-65. Because, as shown above,
`
`Samsung fails to demonstrate that independent claim 13 is rendered obvious by
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Okada I in view of Incropera and Anderson, none of the claims that depend from
`
`claim 13 are anticipated or obvious despite any of the additional prior art
`
`references purported to relate to those dependent claims. Hartness Int’l Inc. v.
`
`Simplimatic Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A fortiori,
`
`dependent claim 3 was nonobvious (and novel) because it contained all of the
`
`limitations of claim 1 plus a further limitation.”); Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson
`
`& Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“We need consider no other
`
`claim because if the invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious the same is
`
`true as to the remaining dependent claims.”).
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, Reg. No. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, Reg. No. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`
`
`12
`
`Date: November 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R §42.6
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 25, 2016, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 was served on the following parties at the
`
`indicated addresses via email:
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`Chetan R. Bansal
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Beata Ichou
`
` Beata Ichou, Paralegal
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim #
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`56
`57
`58
`59
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`
`Samsung v. Flamm
`Appendix A
`IPR 2016‐0469
`IPR 2016‐0470
`IPR 2016‐0468
`IPR 2015‐01768
`IPR 2015‐01766
`IPR 2015‐01764
`IPR 2015‐01759
`'264 First Petition '264 Second Petition '264Third Petition '264 Fourth Petition '264 Fifth Petition '264 Sixth Petition '264 Seventh Petition
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`Not Instituted
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`