Ex Parte 6,781,231 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2016

95001251 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/000,509 10/07/2009 6781231 552681 5895
30954 7590 04/06/2016
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
2345 GRAND Boulevard
SUITE 2400
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
EXAMINER
ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/001,251 11/24/2009 6,781,231 092771-0021D 6960
30954 7590 04/06/2016
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
2345 GRAND Boulevard
SUITE 2400
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
EXAMINER
ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/001,363 06/30/2010 6,781,231 092771-0035 7421
30954 7590 04/06/2016
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
2345 GRAND Boulevard
SUITE 2400
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108
EXAMINER
ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. and CIRRUS LOGIC INT’L (UK) LTD.
Third Party Requesters and Respondents
and
BSE Co., Ltd.
Third Party Requester and Respondent

v.

KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509,
95/001,251, and 95/001,363
Patent US 6,781,231 B2
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before JAMES T. MOORE, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

2

SUMMARY
In our Decision on Appeal mailed September 9, 2015 (“Decision”),
this Panel of the Board affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting
reexamined claims 1–4 and 23–27 of US Patent 6,781,231 B2 (“the
’231 Patent”). Dec. 23. More specifically, the Board affirmed the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Halteren (US 6,324,907 B1; issued Dec. 4, 2001). Dec. 15–23; e.g.,
RAN 37–39. The Board also affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims
23–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, for lacking adequate written description.
Dec. 10–15; RAN 16–17.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, Patent Owner (“Owner”) subsequently
requested rehearing of our Decision, setting forth three specific issues. See
generally Reh’g Req. filed October 10, 2015. In response, Third Party
Requester (“Requester”) responded with a paper styled, “Comments Under
35 U.S.C. § 41.79(c) In Opposition To Request For Rehearing,” filed
October 27, 2015 (“Opposition To Request”).
Subsequent to receiving the Parties’ respective briefs on rehearing, the
Panel became aware—without the requisite notification from either party or
from the Examiner1—of the existence of a related PTAB appeal.

1 See rules 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.67(c)(1), 41.68(b)(1) (requiring parties filing
appeal briefs and respondent briefs, respectively, in an inter partes
reexamination to identify “all other prior and pending appeals . . . or judicial
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

3

Specifically, Owner brought Appeal 2015-004989 before the PTAB (“the
’4989 Appeal”) in relation to an inter partes reexamination of
US 8,018,049 B2, issued September 13, 2011 and titled “SILICON
CONDENSER MICROPHONE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD”
(“the ’049 Patent”). The ’049 Patent indicates that that patent is also issued
to the present inventor, Anthony D. Minervini, and is also assigned to the
present assignee, Knowles Electronics LLC.
Requester for reexamination of the ’049 Patent, Analog Devices, Inc.,
filed a Corrected Request for Reexamination of the ’049 Patent. See
Request for Inter Partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,018,049 (filed
Dec. 23, 2011 in reexamination application 95/001,850) (“the ’850 Request”
and “the ’850 Reexamination”). The ’850 Request was subsequently granted
(see Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination, mailed Mar. 7,
2012), and various claims of the ’049 Patent were rejected in the associated
reexamination (see ’850 Reexam., RAN 1).

proceedings . . . [that] may be related to, directly affect or be directly
affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision in the pending
appeal.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.69(a) (requiring an Examiner’s Answer in
an inter partes reexamination to make of record determinations that an
appeal brief or respondent brief does not comply with Rules 41.67 and
41.68); 37 C.F.R. § 41.8(a)(2) (requiring a party filing an appeal brief to
identify “within 20 days of any change during a proceeding . . . , [e]ach
judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the
Board proceeding”).
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

4

One rejection includes an anticipation rejection over Halteren (see
’850 Reexam., RAN 5–10)—the same prior art reference at issue in the
present appeal and rehearing. Owner appealed that rejection, among others
(see generally, ’4989 Brief of appellant Knowles electronics LLC (filed June
17, 2014)), and therein argued, as in the present appeal, that the claim term
“package” should be interpreted narrowly and that Halteren does not
disclose a package (id. at 5–19). The Panel of the ’4989 Appeal rejected
Owner’s claim construction of the term “package” (’4989 Decision on
Appeal (mailed Aug. 31, 2015) at 6–9), affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection over Halteren (id. at 9–11), and denied Owner’s Request for
Rehearing (see generally ’4989 Decision on Request for Rehearing (mailed
Feb. 18, 2016)). Owner subsequently appealed this Decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Patent Owner Knowles
Electronics, LLC’s Notice of Appeal (filed in the ’1850 Reexamination
Mar. 21, 2016).
Because neither Party brought this related appeal to the present
Panel’s attention, much less presented any arguments in relation to this
related appeal, any arguments that may have been based on that Panel’s
Decisions are deemed waived. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551, F.3d 1307, 1313–
14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make
for a given ground of rejection as waived). We instead review the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by the parties, and in
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

5

light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
For the reasons set forth below, Owner’s Request for Rehearing is
DENIED.

THE INVENTION AND CLAIMS
The ’231 Patent describes the invention as follows:
A microelectromechanical system package has a
microelectromechanical system microphone, a substrate, and a
cover. The substrate has a surface for supporting the
microelectromechanical microphone. The cover includes a
conductive layer having a center portion bounded by a peripheral
edge portion. A housing is formed by connecting the peripheral
edge portion of the cover to the substrate. The center portion of
the cover is spaced from the surface of the substrate to
accommodate the microelectromechanical system microphone.
The housing includes an acoustic port for allowing an acoustic
signal to reach the microelectromechanical system microphone.
Abstract.

Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is
illustrative of the appealed claims:
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

6

1. A microelectromechanical system package comprising:
a microelectromechanical system microphone;
a substrate comprising a surface for supporting the
microelectromechanical microphone;
a cover comprising a conductive layer having a center
portion bounded by a peripheral edge portion; and
a housing formed by connecting the peripheral edge
portion of the cover to the substrate, the center portion of the
cover spaced from the surface of the substrate to accommodate
the microelectromechanical system microphone, the housing
including an acoustic port for allowing an acoustic signal to reach
the micro electromechanical system microphone wherein the
housing provides protection from an interference signal.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1) states,
(1) [A] request for rehearing must state with particularity the
points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in
rendering the Board’s opinion reflecting its decision. Arguments
not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not
previously relied upon in the briefs are not permitted in the
request for rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (b)(2)
and (b)(3) of this section.

Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

7

CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
I.
Owner frames the first allegation of Board error as follows:
Issue 1: The Board misapprehended and overlooked established
tenets of claim construction and the weight of the evidence in
interpreting the term “package” in a manner that is unreasonably
broader than any corroborated example of the term “package” in
the record, further failing to properly apply or distinguish the
Federal Circuit’s prior holdings interpreting this claim element.
Reh’g Req. 2.
More specifically, Owner first contends that “[t]he Board erred in
failing to credit [Owner’s] extensive evidence that a person skilled in the art
would have understood the term “package” to be mountable either by
surface mounting or by through-hole mounting. Reh’g Req. 5 (citing PO
App. Br. 9–13).
This argument is not persuasive because the Panel did not overlook
Owner’s evidence submitted to show that a package must be mountable by
surface mounting or through-hole mounting. Owner’s evidence was noted
(Dec. 15–18), and the Panel explained why the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “package” included, but was not limited to, packages
produced from these two mounting methods (Dec. 18–22).
Owner also contends that “the Board overlooked that the record is
devoid of a single corroborated example of the term “package” being used
to describe a technology with any electro-mechanical connection means
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

8

other than surface mounting or by through-hole mounting.” Reh’g Req. 5
(citing PO App. Br. 9–13) (or more simply, “other types of packages”).
This argument is not persuasive. It is not dispositive whether the
record includes any prior art references that refer to other types of packages
ipsissimis verbis as “packages.” Rather, the dispositive issue is whether the
record contains sufficient evidence to conclude that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “package” must be limited to the narrow definition
proffered by Owner. The Decision addressed this question and set forth
evidence for the Panel’s conclusion that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “package” was not limited to Owner’s narrow
interpretation, but instead included other types of packages. Dec. 18–22.
Owner next contends that “[t]he Board further failed to properly
address pertinent Federal Circuit precedent about the meaning of the term
‘package’” in the ’231 Patent. Reh’g Req. 5. Towards this end, Owner
argues that the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade
Commission’s narrower interpretation of the ’231 Patent’s “package”
(Reh’g Req. 5–6), and Owner asserts that it was legal error for the Board to
reject “those aspects of the Federal circuit’s construction of ‘package’ on the
sole ground that the Federal Circuit was not applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard” (Reh’g Req. 6). Owner then cites legal
precedent for the propositions that “an agency has an obligation to
‘acknowledge’ a ‘previous judicial interpretation of a disputed claim term’
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

9

and ‘to assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable
construction of the term.’” Reh’g Req. 6 (citing Power Integrations, Inc. v.
Lee, 797 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
This argument is unpersuasive. The Panel did consider and
“acknowledge” the district court’s interpretation of “package.” Dec. 21.
However, considering and acknowledging the court’s interpretation does not
mean that the Board then necessarily must adopt the court’s interpretation.
Even Owner acknowledges (1) that the circuit court applied a narrower
interpretation standard than the currently applicable broadest-reasonable-
interpretation standard, and (2) that the USPTO is not bound in
reexamination proceedings by claim constructions produced by a court.
Transcript for Oral Hearing held July 22, 2015 (entered into the record
Aug. 20, 2015) at 8. Furthermore, the Decision also explained the additional
evidence the Board weighed and relied upon in concluding that the term
“package,” as used in the ’231 Patent, should be interpreted more broadly
under the applicable, broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard. Dec. 15–
21.

Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

10

II.
Owner frames the second allegation of Board error as follows:
Issue 2: The Board misapprehended and overlooked the fact that
Halteren fails to disclose the claimed “package,” even under the
definitions of “package” that the Board relied on in rejecting
Knowles’s construction.
Reh’g Req. 6.
However, Owner’s supporting arguments generally are not directed to
this allegation. See Reh’g Req. 6–9. Most of the arguments of this section
are, instead, directed to the first allegation of error, discussed above—that
the claim term “package” should be afforded a narrower interpretation. Id.;
see, e.g., id. at 6–7 (arguing that in endorsing “the Examiner’s finding that
Haltern’s ‘flexible substrate transducer assembly’ is a package[,] . . . the
Board overlooked a fundamental difference between Halteren’s ‘flexible’
assembly and the actual ‘packages’ described in Minervini ’231 and the
above-cited extrinsic evidence”). To the extent that these arguments of the
second allegation of error are, in fact, directed to the noted first allegation of
error, these arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above in
Section I.
Owner does present one argument in this section of the Rehearing
Request that is directed to the stated second allegation: Owner argues that
“the Decision overlooked that Halteren’s failure to provide a way to
mechanically attach its disclosed device to a circuit board would lead to
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

11

failure to provide protection from mechanical and environmental stresses.”
Reh’g Req. 8; accord 8–9.
At the outset, we question whether this argument was timely raised.
See Opp. To Req. 7 (contending that this argument was not raised in
Owner’s original brief). Regardless, though, this argument is unpersuasive.
As noted by Requester,
Owner points to no evidence or legal authority that the Board
overlooked. Owner’s assertion that Halteren fails to be a
package because it does not describe a way to mechanically
attach its disclosed device to a circuit board is based entirely on
unsupported attorney argument. Owner does not explain why
Halteren would need to describe a way to mechanically attach its
disclosed device to a circuit board for the Halteren device to
provide the “mechanical and environmental protection”
described by the JEDEC definition of package.
Id. (emphasis added).
In fact, Halteren does disclose that the package provides mechanical
and environmental protection. See, e.g., Halteren, col. 2, ll. 57–59 (“the
term ‘lid’ designates various forms of covers, casings and housing that are
capable of providing the shielding from the external environment”); see also,
id. col. 6, ll. 29–33 (“an important issue that needs to be addressed is the
capability of the flexible substrate transducer assembly to withstand stress
forces acting on the flexible member and the attached transducer system
covered by the lid”); accord id. col. 6, ll. 29–64; col. 6, ll. 57–62
(“potentially damaging forces are minimized by substantially rigidly
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

12

attaching the lid to the upper surface of the flexible elongate member to
restrain the supporting area of the flexible elongate member so as to increase
a stiffness of the supporting area”). In short, Halteren’s lid does, in fact,
provide mechanical and environmental protection, including acoustic
protection. Halteren col. 2, ll. 57–67.

III.
Issue 3 relates to the written description rejection of new claims 23–
27, issued under 35 U.S.C, § 112, ¶ 1. The rejection results from the new
claims’ inclusion of the language “wherein the solder pads are configured to
mechanically attach and electrically connect the package to a surface of an
external printed circuit board using a solder reflow process” (emphasis
added).
Owner frames the third allegation of Board error as follows:
Issue 3: The Board misapprehended and overlooked established
legal precedent and critical evidence in affirming the Examiner's
decision that claims 23–27 lack written description support for
the “solder reflow” limitation.
Reh’g Req. 9.
In support of this general allegation, Owner more specifically argues
that there is no dispute that the ‘231 Patent discloses solder pads, that
extrinsic evidence of record makes it clear that such solder pads are meant to
use Surface Mounting Technology, and “[o]bjective evidence indicates that
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

13

a person skilled in the art would understand that the disclosed solder pads on
the bottom of Minervini’s package would be used to surface mount a device
through reflow soldering.” Reh’g Req. 9. This argument is not persuasive.
As explained in the Decision (see e.g., Dec. 11, 14), evidence of what
one skilled in the art would have understood to be obvious in light of a
disclosure is relevant to the rule’s requirement that a claim be enabled—not
to the rule’s separate requirement that the claim possess adequate written
description. The test for whether an applicant’s specification contains
adequate written description for the claimed subject matter is whether
applicant conveyed with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as
of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention. Enzo
Biochem, Inc. v. Gen Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In further support of its position, Owner newly cites to three cases not
previously relied upon in the original appeal. Cf. Reh’g Req. 10 (citing to
Falko-Gunter Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (for
the proposition that “it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the
invention”); Union Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (for the proposition that “[t]he written description requirement does
not require the applicant to describe exactly the subject matter claimed”);
and LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (for the proposition that “[a] claim will not be invalidated
on section 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

14

do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim
language”) with PO App. Br. 49–54 (addressing the written-description issue
without citing to these cases).
These cases do not support Owner’s position. The present situation is
not one in which Owner failed to spell out every detail of the invention or
failed to describe the claimed subject matter exactly. Rather, the present
situation is one in which Owner failed to even mention, much less spell out
any detail of, the claimed reflow process used for connecting the solder
pads. As previously explained in the Decision,
The present situation is not one wherein the specification
recites . . . a solder pad that can be connected to a board by use
of a reflow process, and then merely fails to provide any details
of what compositions and methods can be used to undertake the
disclosed reflow solder process. Rather, the present
Specification merely discloses a genus—solder pads that are
capable of being connected to a board. But the Specification fails
completely to disclose the newly claimed species of such pads—
pads that are connectable to a board specifically by using a
reflow process.
Dec. 13.
Nor is the fact pattern of LizardTech on point. We agree with
Requester:
in LizardTech, the specification described a [species of a]
particular method for creating a seamless [discrete wavelet
transform] DWT, while the claims were broad enough to cover
[a genus that included] creating a seamless DWT using other
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

15

methods. Thus, the issue in LizardTech is the opposite of the
situation here where the claims at issue are narrower than the
disclosure and recite a specific requirement (solder pads
configured to connect the package to a printed circuit board using
a solder reflow process) that is not disclosed in the specification.
LizardTech has no bearing on whether claims 23–27 have written
description support.
Opp. To Req. 13.
Owner also alleges that “[t]he Board misapprehended this
written description issue as arising under the genus-species rubric.”
Reh’g Req. 14 (citing Dec. 10). According to Owner, the present
situation of where the package depicted in Fig. 3 is allegedly shown to
be surface mounted using reflow technology, “is not a situation (e.g.,
as sometimes arises in biotechnology and chemical patents) where a
patentee tries to claim a specific tree after disclosing only a forest.”
Reh’g Req. 10 (emphasis added and citation omitted).
This argument is not persuasive for at least two reasons. First,
Owner presents no support for the proposition that the discussed
“genus-species rubric” is limited solely to biotechnology and chemical
patents. Secondly, even though the presently claimed package may be
used within a larger electronics system, this fact does not negate the
ultimate fact that the present dispute is, specifically, one of chemistry.
The dispute centers around the chemical composition of the disclosed
metal solder pad and whether this pad’s composition is sufficiently
Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

16

disclosed as being one capable of being used in a solder reflow
process. The composition of solder and methods of reflowing solder
are quintessentially chemical in nature.

DECISION
Owner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.

DENIED

Appeal 2015-004342
Merged Inter Partes Reexamination Control Nos. 95/000,509, 95/001,251,
and 95/001,363
US Patent No. 6,781,231 B2

17

Patent Owner:

LATHROP & GAGE LLP
2345 GRAND Boulevard
SUITE 2400
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

Third Party Requesters:

SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
125 SUMMER STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110

WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210

LADAS & PARRY Y. LLP
224 SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60604