IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of:
`Jacob W. JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09f349,477
`Confirmation No.
`
`Art Unit: 215 5
`
`Examiner:
`Philip B. Tran
`
`Filed: July 9, 1999
`
`Atty. Docket No. 36792-162236
`
`(formerly A-21505)
`
`Customer No.
`
`For:
`
`TRANSMISSION CONTROL
`PROTOCOL/INTERNET
`PROTOCOL (TCP/IP)
`PACKET—CENTRIC WIRELESS
`
`POINT TO MULTI-POINT
`
`(PTMP) TRANSMISSION
`SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
`
`Ii
`
`IJ"
`
`ii
`
`II“
`m “II
`"iii “iii
`iii"
`26694
`PATENT TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Amendment and Reply Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.111 and 1.121
`
`Honorable Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`
`Washington, DC. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`In reply to the Non-final Office Action (Office Action) dated April 24, 2001, (PTO
`
`Prosecution File Wrapper Paper No. 6), Applicant submits the following Amendment and Reply.
`
`It is not believed that extensions of time or fees for net addition of claims are required
`
`beyond those that may otherwise be provided for in documents accompanying this paper.
`
`However, if additional extensions of time are needed to prevent abandonment of this application,
`
`then such extensions of time are hereby petitioned under 37 CPR. § 1.136(a), and any fees
`287909v1
`
`intellectual Ventures I LLC
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`ERICSSON V. IVi
`
`IPR2018-00727
`
`

`

`required therefor (including fees for net addition of claims), and any other fee deficiency are
`
`hereby authorized to be charged, and any overpayments credited to, our Deposit Account No. 22—
`
`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`026 1 .
`
`In the Claims:
`
`Please add the following new claims:
`
`Amendments
`
`13.
`
`A packet—centric wireless point to multi-point telecommunications system
`
`comprising:
`
`a wireless base station communicating via a packet-centric protocol to a first data
`
`network, wherein said packet-centric protocol comprises at least one of a transmission control
`
`protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP), and a user datagram protocol/intemet protocol (UDP/IP);
`
`one or more host workstations communicating via said packetrcentric protocol to
`
`said first data network;
`
`one or more subscriber customer premise equipment (CPE) stations coupled with
`
`said wireless base station over a shared wireless bandwidth via said packet—centric protocol over
`
`a wireless communication medium; and
`
`one or more subscriber workstations coupled via said packet-centric protocol to
`
`each of said subscriber CPE stations over a second network.
`
`14.
`
`The system of claim 13, further comprising:
`
`resource allocation means for allocating shared bandwidth among said subscriber
`
`CPE stations and wherein said resource allocation means comprises means for performing
`
`287909v1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`bandwidth allocation to ensure optimal end-user quality of service ((208).
`
`15.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein said wireless communication medium comprises
`
`a radio frequency (RF) communications medium.
`
`16.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein said wireless communication medium comprises
`
`a cable communications medium.
`
`17.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein said wireless 00mmunjcation medium further
`
`comprises, a telecommunications access method including a time division multiple access I time
`
`division duplex (TDMA/TDD) access method.
`
`18.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein said first data network comprises a wireline wide
`
`area network (WAN) and said second network comprises a wireline local area network (LAN).
`
`19.
`
`The system of claim 13, further comprising:
`
`a resource allocator that allocates shared bandwidth among said subscriber CPE
`
`stations, wherein said resource allocator optimizes end—user quality of service (QoS), and
`
`wherein said resource allocator is application aware.
`
`20.
`
`The system of claim 13, wherein said packet-centric protocol is not an
`
`asynchronous transfer mode protocol.
`
`287909v1
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—20 will be pending in the application,
`
`with claims land 13 being the independent claims. New claims 13—20 are sought to be added.
`
`These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their entry is respectfully requested.
`
`If any portion of the specification or claims were sought to be amended in the foregoing,
`
`attached hereto is a marked-up version of the changes made to the specification and claims by the
`
`current amendment. The attached page is captioned “Version with markings to show changes
`
`made.”
`
`Based on the above Amendment and the following Remarks, Applicant respectfiilly
`
`requests that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Objection to the Claims
`
`Regarding claim 12, the Examiner at 111 objects to “application aware” for informalities,
`
`stating the Applicant should replace the term with “application software” or other suitable terms.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees. The expression “application aware” is clear as defined in the
`
`specification. Applicant refers the Examiner to the following selections fiom the specification
`
`that make the expression clear:
`
`. the [media access control (MACH link layer of the present invention is in
`.
`.
`communication with the higher protocol layers, it is application aware, transport
`
`287909v1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`aware and network aware. .
`
`. IP header fields 702 can include, e.g., source and
`
`destination IP addresses, helpful in providing application aware preferential
`resource allocation.
`
`Thus Applicant requests that the objection be withdrawn as no correction is required.
`
`The Examiner at 113 objects to claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2‘1d paragraph as being
`
`indefinite. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts that “[it] is not clear how a
`
`wireless communication comprises a cable communication medium.” Applicant refers the
`
`Examiner to following quoted passages from the Specification that should clarify for the
`
`Examiner what is meant by the claim. It would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`that broadband communication over a coaxial cable waveguide is a form of radio frequency (RF)
`
`communication which for the purposes of this specification is described as a wireless
`
`communication method. Applicant can of course “be his own lexicographer.”
`
`. Prior to the present invention, per-flow differentiation has not been used in a
`.
`.
`wireless environment (including radio frequencies transmitted over coaxial cables
`and satellite communications). .
`. FIG. 1C illustrates a conventional video network
`150 such as, e.g., a cable television (CATV) network. Video network 150 can
`include video network 160 coupled to various video capture, distribution links and
`video output monitors. Video input devices can include, e.g., conference cameras
`154 and 158. Video output devices can include, e.g., televisions 152 and 156. Video
`network 160 can include a variety of head end (i.e. the serving end of the cable) and
`distribution link equipment such as, e.g., coaxial cable television (CATV) and
`national television standard code (NTSC) tuner equipment for multiplexing various
`video signals. Standard cable systems have an immense amount of bandwidth
`available to them.
`
`It is important to note that CATV is a wireless communication method. The
`frequencies of many video signals are distributed along the cable at the same time.
`A television tuner selects a particular channel by tuning into a specific frequency or
`a “frequency band.”
`'
`Although a cable television CATV video network often includes only one
`physical cable, a number of channels can simultaneously be present on the cable.
`
`287909vl
`
`_5_
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`This accomplished by sharing the frequency spectrum of the cable and assigning
`different
`frequency ranges
`to different channels using frequency division
`multiplexing (FDM). A broadband cable communications system can operate
`exactly like a CATV system. A counter to this FDM technique is division of the
`cable not divided into frequency bands but into time slots using time—division
`multiplexing (TDM). With TDM, each transmitting video station can grab the entire
`bandwidth of the cable, but only for a very short period of time. The cable is
`currently capable of carrying up to 750 MHZ. FDM techniques can be used to divide
`the channels into a number of dedicated logical channels. Innovations have allowed
`a time division multiple access (TDMA) within an FDM channel.
`A cable system can allow multiplexing on two separate dimensions to achieve
`data channels over a cable. The channels can be separated by FDM, and in a
`frequency band the channel can then be shared via TDMA among multiple users.
`The most common of the TDMA access methods on broadband cable is CSMA/CD
`
`developed by XEROX for Ethernet.
`Using a single cable, a midsplit arrangement can accommodate two—way
`simultaneous transmission. Another way to accomodate this is to use a dual cable
`
`system.
`Broadband is inherently an analog signaling method. Because video cameras,
`e.g., are also analog devices, a signal from a video camera (or video recorder) can be
`directly transmitted onto a broadband cable channel in red/green/blue (RGB) format.
`.
`. In an alternative embodiment, RF communication is accomplished over cable
`television (CATV) coaxial cable. As those skilled in the relevant art will understand,
`a coaxial cable functions as a waveguide over which RF waves propagate.
`Accordingly, it is possible for the communications link between RF transceiver
`subscriber antenna 292d and WAP 290d to be a coaxial cable. Therefore, a coaxial
`
`cable connection is analogous to a wireless connection, and is referred to as an
`alternative form of wireless connection in the present invention.
`
`(See Specification at page 58, lines 13-23, page 59, lines 1-19, and page 74, lines 8-13, emphasis
`
`added). Thus, Applicant asserts that the claim is definite. Further, Applicant requests that the
`
`Examiner withdraw his objection.
`
`287909v1
`
`
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`App]. No. 09/349,477
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`The Examiner at 115 rejects claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Smith, US. Patent No. 5,930,472 (hereafter “Smith”) in view of Focsaneanu et
`
`al. US. Patent No. 5,610,910 (hereafter “Focsaneanu”). Applicant traverses the rejection. The
`
`present invention differs in several important ways from the Smith and Focsaneanu references,
`
`alone or in combination.
`
`Smith apparently teaches a wireless messaging system including a plurality of Motorola
`
`Pagewn'ter 2000 two—way paging portable subscriber units (PSU) 122 in wireless communication
`
`with a base station 116. The Smith patent illustrates a method for proxying and caching
`
`hypertext transfer protocol information at the base station 116 for sending to the PSU 122. Smith
`
`teaches a browser whose functionality is Split between a wireless client and an infrastructure
`
`portion of a wireless communication system. The infrastructure portions sends to the wireless
`
`client a response from a server to an earlier request originated by the wireless client, the response
`
`modified by the infrastructure portion to comprise a placeholder for an additional data element
`
`needed to complete the response. Without a need for a further request from the wireless client,
`
`the infrastructure portion then originates a request to the server for the additional data element
`
`and forwards the additional data element to the wireless client when received from the server.
`
`Smith abstract and FIG. 1.
`
`Focsaneanu appears to disclose a system for providing adaptable multiservice access to
`
`networks. The system monitors traffic on a local access at a connection request and/or during the
`
`287909v1
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`established connection, and the local access is configured according to the transmission
`
`requirements.
`
`Smith and Focsaneanu, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a packet-centric
`
`point to multi-point telecommunications system including one or more CPE stations having one
`
`or more subscriber workstations coupled to the CPE stations, where the CPE stations are coupled
`
`to a wireless base station over a shared bandwidth via a packet-centric protocol over a wireless
`
`medium according to the present invention.
`
`The Examiner rejects claim 1 by asserting that Smith teaches a packet—centric wireless
`
`point to multi-point telecommunications system according to the present invention. Applicant
`
`disagrees. The present invention includes various technical differences from the Smith system.
`
`For at least the following reasons, Applicant respectfully asserts that the present invention is
`
`patentable over Smith and Focsaneanu, alone or in combination, and requests that the Examiner
`
`withdraw the rejection and let the present application pass to issue.
`
`The Examiner, with reference to claim 1, asserts that FIG. 1 of Smith teaches or suggests
`
`a wireless base station coupled to a first data network, and one or more host workstations
`
`coupled to said first data network. The Applicant agrees with the Examiner.
`
`The Examiner filrther asserts that Smith teaches or suggests one or more subscriber
`
`customer premise equipment (CPE) stations in wireless communication with said wireless base
`
`station over a shared bandwidth using a packet-centric protocol. The Applicant respectfully
`
`disagrees. Smith does not teach or suggest a subscriber customer premise equipment (CPE)
`
`287909vl
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`station according to the present invention. Smith, alone or in combination with Focsaneanu, also
`
`does not teach or suggest a subscriber CPE station according to the present invention. Smith
`
`and Focsaneanu, alone or in combination, also do not teach or suggest wireless communication
`
`over a shared bandwidth using a packet—centric protocol according to the present invention.
`
`Referring to FIGS. 2D and 3B of the present invention, Smith does not teach or suggest a
`
`subscriber CPE station 294d according to the present invention. The antenna 118 of Smith is
`
`analogous to antenna 202 shown in FIG. 2A of the present invention. The subscriber CPE
`
`station is an important aspect of the present invention. The subscriber CPE station allows one or
`
`more subscriber workstations to gain access to the shared wireless bandwidth between the
`
`wireless base station and the subscriber CPE station.
`
`The Examiner further asserts that Smith teaches and one or more subscriber workstations.
`
`Applicant respectfully disagrees. Smith does not teach or suggest coupling the PSU subscriber
`
`devices of Smith to a subscriber CPE station according to the present invention. The Examiner
`
`also concedes that Smith does not teach one or more subscriber workstations coupled to a
`
`subscriber CPE stations. Applicant respectfully agrees. Since Smith does not teach or suggest a
`
`subscriber CPE station, Smith also does not teach or suggest coupling the PSU subscriber
`
`devices to the subscriber CPE station. Also, Smith does not show in any way a second network
`
`of the present invention. The Examiner relies upon Focsaneanu to teach or suggest coupling
`
`subscriber workstations tOgether. Applicant respectfully disagrees. FIG. 7 of Focsaneanu relied
`
`upon by the Examiner depicts multiple workstations coupled in wired communication by a CPE
`
`237909v1
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09f349,477
`
`connector 206, further coupled in wired communication with an access module 208. Smith and
`
`Focsaneanu, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1.
`
`Regarding claim 2, the Examiner correctly concedes that Smith does not teach the use of
`
`TCP/IP as a packet-centric protocol. The Examiner then appears to assert that it would have
`
`been obvious in light of Focsaneanu to use TCP/IP. The Examiner has not shown, and Smith
`
`and Focsaneanu, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a packet-centric point to multi-
`
`point telecommunications system including one or more CPE stations having one or more
`
`subscriber workstations coupled to the CPE stations, where the CPE stations are coupled to a
`
`wireless base station over a shared bandwidth via a packet-centric protocol, where the packet-
`
`centric protocol is TCP/IP, over a wireless medium according to the present invention. Thus, for
`
`at least these reasons claim 2 is also patentable over the applied references.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the Examiner correctly concedes that Smith and Focsaneanu, alone or
`
`in combination, do not teach the use of UDP/TP as a packet-centric protocol. Applicant agrees.
`
`The Examiner then appears to assert that it would have been obvious in light of Internet to use
`
`UDP/IP. Applicant disagrees. The Examiner has not shown, and Smith and Focsaneanu, alone
`
`or in combination, do not teach or suggest a packet-centric point to multi-point
`
`telecommunications system including one or more CPE stations having one or more subscriber
`
`workstations coupled to the CPE stations, where the CPE stations are coupled to a_wireless base
`
`station over a shared bandwidth via a packet—centric protocol, where the packet-centric protocol
`
`287909vl
`
`_10-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`is UDP/IP, over a wireless medium according to the present invention. Thus, for at least these
`
`reasons claim 3 is also patentable over the applied references.
`
`For at least the reasons above, claims 6, and 8-9 are also patentable over Smith alone or
`
`in combination with Focsaneanu.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s assertion that Smit teaches
`
`the second data network. Smith does not teach a second network coupling one or more
`
`subscriber workstations to each of said subscriber CPE stations.
`
`For at least the reasons described above, with reference to independent claim 1, it follows
`
`that dependent claims 7, and 10—12 are also patentable over Smith and Focsaneanu, alone or in
`
`combination.
`
`The Examiner at 1[6 rejects claims 4-5, 7, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Smith, US. Patent No. 5,930,472 (Smith) in view of Focsaneanu et al. US.
`
`Patent No. 5,610,910 (Focsaneanu), and further in view of Cheng et a1. “Wireless Intelligent
`
`ATM Network and Protocol Design for Future Personal Communication Systems,” IEEE 1997
`
`(hereafter “Cheng”). Applicant traverses the rejection. The present invention differs in several
`
`important ways from the applied references.
`
`For at least the reasons described above, with reference to independent claim 1, Applicant
`
`asserts that dependent claims 7, and 10-12 are also patentable over Smith and Focsaneanu, alone
`
`or in combination.
`
`237909“
`
`-1 1-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`Regarding claims 4—5, as the Examiner concedes, Smith and Facsaneanu do not teach or
`
`suggest a resource allocation means for allocating shared bandwidth according to claim 4, or
`
`performing resource allocation so as to optimize end-user quality of service (QoS). Applicant
`
`agrees. The Examiner further asserts that it would have been obvious to combine Cheng with
`
`the other two applied references to obtain the claimed invention. Applicant disagrees.
`
`Cheng apparently teaches the use of elements like forward error correction (FEC),
`
`convolutional coding, and acknowledgement requests (ARQs) to meet a bit error rate (BER).
`
`See page 1289, right column, line 21. Cheng is using BER as a measure of QoS. This would be
`
`appropriate if measuring QoS with the traditional telecommunications industry. However, the
`
`BER is an 081 stande layer 1 or physical layer characteristic. However, the QoS referred to in
`
`claims 5 and 11 are “enduser” QoS, or an internet protocol (IP) QoS, as Opposed to a BER
`
`interpretation of QoS. BER QoS and IP QoS are completely different types of quality of service.
`
`IP QoS is concerned with scheduling and packet prioritization, not telephony signal
`
`characteristics, the realm of BER QoS. The IP protocol assumes that the underlying network
`
`provides best effort delivery services. A system with certain IP QoS characteristics such as, e.g.,
`
`prioritized packet queuing, can behave in a specific manner regardless of the BER.
`
`[P QoS at
`
`081 layer 3 is above the BER level 031 layer 1. The Examiner sites the concept of spectral
`
`efficiency as an optimization of QoS. Spectral efficiency is possible in the world of radio
`
`spectrum utilization. However, what provides high spectral utilization may produce poor latency
`
`287909“
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`and jitter (i.e., two well known data networking QoS parameters) for packets. Again, spectral
`
`efficiency and IP QoS are not related.
`
`Furthermore, Cheng deals with asynchronous transfer mode (ATM). ATM is a cell
`
`centric, circuit centric protocol, unlike the packet centric protocol of the present invention. An
`
`ATM segmentation and resequencing algorithm (SAR) cuts a packet into fragments called cells,
`
`prior to transmission over a link. No application based QoS support decisions can be made using
`
`ATM because no one element has the packet per se. Intervening network elements only see the
`
`fragments (cells) and not the whole packet as in the present invention. The best that ATM can do
`
`is to classify packets and place the cells of such packets into a permanent virtual circuit (PVC)
`
`having a certain QoS quality. In the case of ATM, QoS is provided quite differently than the
`
`present invention, by creating virtual circuits having particular QoS characteristics. In ATM, no
`
`active resource allocation or reconfiguration occurs to support the QoS of an application. Thus,
`
`claims 4 and 5 are also patentable over the applied references.
`
`Regarding claim 7, the Examiner concedes that Smith and Focsaneanu do not teach or
`
`suggest a telecommunications access method. Applicant agrees. For at least the reasons above
`
`with reference to claim 1, claim 7 is also patentable.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Smith, Focsaneanu and Cheng, alone or in combination, do not teach
`
`or suggest all the features of the present invention. For at least the reasons discussed with
`
`reference to claim 4, claim 10 is also patentable over the applied references.
`
`287909vl
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`Regarding claim 11, Smith, Focsaneanu and Cheng, alone or in combination, do not teach
`
`or suggest all the features of the present invention. For at least the reasons discussed with
`
`reference to claim 5, claim 11 is also patentable over the applied references.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Smith, Focsaneanu and Cheng, alone or in combination, do not teach
`
`or suggest the feature of a network element that supports the application layer of the 081 model,
`
`i.e., layer 7, by modifying the behavior of protocol stack layers one through four. Conventional
`
`network elements are aware of some network protocols. The awareness of traffic flowing
`
`through a network element normally only encompasses layers 1 (physical), 2 (data link), through
`
`3 (network), and perhaps 4 (transport). Advantageously, the present invention is “application
`
`aware.” A network element performing the functions described in the present invention has
`
`knowledge of layers 1 through 7. The application aware network element can obtain this
`
`awareness via, e.g., configuration files, the classification mechanism of the present invention,
`
`and the application Operational profiles. Conventional classifiers perform classification using
`
`pack components from layer 1 through 3 and the lower half of layer 4 (i.e., distinguish UDP from
`
`TCP). The present invention performs additional analysis on layers 4 through 7 to identify (e.g.,
`
`from source or destination information) the application in use. The present invention then can
`
`use the knowledge identified to provide further improved QoS network resources. The present
`
`invention not only can identify the application, but also can continuously reconfigure resource
`
`allocations based on the application. By doing so, the present invention can provide an optimal
`
`QoS for the application. Thus claim 12 is patentable over the applied references.
`
`287909vl
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Thus all previously pending claims 1—12 are patentable over the applied references. For
`
`at least the above reasons, new claims 13—20 are also patentable over the applied references.
`
`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`Improper Combination ofReferences
`
`Applicant further respectfully points out that the Examiner has not proven his prima facie
`
`case of obviousness. The Smith, Focsaneanu and Cheng references, alone or in any combination
`
`with one another, do not teach or suggest all of the features of the claimed invention. Further,
`
`the Examiner has improperly combined the references. The Examiner has not shown a proper
`
`motivation to combine the references to allegedly obtain the present invention. The Examiner is
`
`using hindsight to combine the references based on the Applicant’s Specification. The Examiner
`
`must teach a motivation to combine the references.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Applicant believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action
`
`and, as such, the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for
`
`any reason, that personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the
`
`Examiner is hereby invited to telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`287909v1
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`Date: May 14, 2001
`
`(
`
`QM'1 1.1.4..
`
`Laurenc J. Marhoef r
`
`Registration No. 21,091
`For
`
`Ralph P. Albrecht
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 43,466
`VENABLE
`
`PO. Box 34385
`
`Washington, DC. 20043-9998
`
`Telephone: (202) 962-4800
`Telefax: (202) 962—8300
`
`287909“
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Version with markings to show changes made
`
`JORGENSEN
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,477
`
`This space intentionally left blank since no claims were amended in this reply.
`
`Document]
`VBHC Rev. 05/14/01 rpa
`
`287909“
`
`-17-
`
`