Ex Parte 7009655 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 2012

95001284 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2012)

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. 95/001,284 12/18/2009 7009655 169AA-000400US 1850 83275 7590 11/09/2012 AMPACC Law Group, PLLC 6100 219th Street SW, Suite 580 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/09/2012 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 ____________ APPLE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. Patent of MEDIOSTREAM, INC. Patent Owner and Appellant ____________________ Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the final decision of the Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315.1 Oral hearing was August 15, 2012. We affirm-in-part. Invention The '655 patent is directed to a method for converting video information from an incoming format to an outgoing format using a process that is free from one or more intermediary files. Abstract. Claims Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative. 1. A system for converting video information from an incoming format to an outgoing format using an integrated computer software application, the integrated computer software application being provided on one or more memories, the one or more memories including: a code directed to receiving video information in a first format; a code directed to receiving a desired output media format based upon a first input; a code directed to receiving a desired TV standard based upon a second input; 1 This appeal is related to Appeal 2012-006988 (inter partes reexamination 95/001,283). Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 3 a code directed to converting the video information in the first format to raw video information an uncompressed format using a decoding process; a code directed to resizing the raw video information in the uncompressed format into a size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard; a code directed to adjusting the uncompressed format in the size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to a frame rate associated with the desired TV standard; a code directed to processing the uncompressed format in the size and the frame rate into an elementary video stream; and a code directed to processing the elementary video stream with audio information in the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to form video and audio information in a presentation format based upon the desired output media format and the desired TV standard. Prior Art CLEANER 5 USER MANUAL FOR MAC OS AND WINDOWS (Terran Interactive 2000) (1995). CLEANER MPEG CHARGER USER MANUAL FOR MAC OS AND WINDOWS (Media 100 2001) (1995). Owner’s Contentions Owner contends that the Examiner erred in entering the following grounds of rejections against the claims: Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 4 I. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Cleaner 5; and II. Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cleaner 5 and Cleaner MPEG Charger. ANALYSIS Section 102(b) -- Claim 1 and Cleaner 5 Owner argues that Cleaner 5 does not disclose certain limitations of claim 1 that we will consider in turn. An integrated computer software application Owner argues that Cleaner 5 does not disclose an “integrated computer software application” as recited in the preamble of claim 1. Owner’s arguments (App. Br. 5-9) rest on the allegation that the reference does not disclose all the elements recited in the body of claim 1, which we will discuss infra. Consistent with the '655 patent’s description of the “integrated computer software application” (col. 3, ll. 23-50), Cleaner 5 is such a software application if it otherwise meets the terms of the claim. However, Owner submits that “[a]n integrated computer software application is software designed to operate or function as a single application, unit or system for handling multiple functions previously found in different software products, usually under the control of at least one common program.” App. Br. 8. As the Examiner notes (Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) 26), with respect to Cleaner 5 a separate application is not needed except for writing files onto disk. Further, we agree with the Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 5 Examiner (RAN 6-7) and Requester (Resp. Br. 7-9) to the extent that even if another application is required for the “integrated” application, Cleaner 5 describes other applications that work with Cleaner 5 as an “integral” application as urged by Owner. A code directed to receiving a desired output media format based upon a first input Owner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art reading the claims, the Specification, and the file history would interpret the term “output media format” to mean “a standard video format for optical disk media.” App. Br. 9. Cleaner 5 addresses MPEG file formats and associated compression algorithms developed by the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) to handle video and audio. Cleaner 5 at 203. According to the reference, the various forms of MPEG are used for a wide range of video and audio applications, including “consumer DVD-Video players.” Id. In particular, “MPEG-2 produces high-data rate, full broadcast-quality files that require DVD, fast CD-ROM or hard drives for playback. . . . MPEG-2 is used for commercial DVDs (DVD-Video). . . .” Id. The reference further notes that one can “easily produce MPEG-1 files for . . . Video CD projects in Cleaner by selecting the Video CD preset in the Advanced Settings window.” Id. at 209. Thus, according to the prior art, each of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 is a “standard video format for optical disk media,” for optical disk media such as Video CDs and DVDs. We therefore agree with the Examiner (RAN 27- Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 6 28) that Cleaner 5 describes output media formats (MPEG-1 and MPEG-2) consistent with Owner’s proffered definition for “output media format.” Owner urges us to go yet further beyond the language of claim 1 and read the “output media format” as requiring the target format for a disk mastering program, what Owner refers to as “optical disk format” -- i.e., the final format before preparing the files for writing to optical disk in a format that can be played by a consumer’s DVD player. See, e.g., App. Br. 10-12. Owner advances two arguments in support of why the claim should be read so narrowly. First, Owner refers to Exhibit 43 of the Evidence Appendix, MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:08-CV-369-CE (E.D. Texas), Memorandum Opinion and Order, at 12. App. Br. 9. However, as Owner notes, correctly, the parties in that proceeding agreed that “media format” refers to “optical disks.” App. Br. 10. Owner has not provided any legal basis in support of why the Requester in this proceeding should be estopped from raising different arguments against patentability. More important, Owner has not provided any legal basis for the view that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is constrained by a non-final order in a District Court proceeding in which the USPTO (Director) was not a party. Moreover, our reviewing court has suggested that even in the case that a party has lost in a final judgment and has exhausted all appeals in a District Court challenge to a patent, the USPTO is not necessarily bound to reach the same conclusions. When a party who has lost in a court proceeding challenging a patent, from which no additional appeal is possible, provokes a reexamination in the PTO, using the same presentations and Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 7 arguments, even with a more lenient standard of proof, the PTO ideally should not arrive at a different conclusion. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).2 Second, Owner submits that the examples provided in the '655 patent of “DVD, VCD, SVCD” among “other optical disk formats” limits the claims to “optical disk formats.” App. Br. 10. However, we agree with the Examiner (e.g., RAN 8-13) that the '655 patent makes clear that the “output media format” is not to be limited to optical disk formats or to the examples provided. In this proceeding, the claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Because applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, “a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). With respect to (American Academy) “definitions presented in the specification,” although an inventor is free to define the specific terms used 2 We observe that although Owner argues the District Court construction of “output media format,” Owner does not argue or mention the District Court’s broader construction of “integrated computer software application” - - “software codes or instructions that are compatible and operate as a unit.” Ex. 43 at 10. Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 8 to describe the invention, “this must be done with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must “clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Further, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). It is improper to “import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the specification makes clear that ‘the patentee … intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.”’ JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1323). We are not persuaded that the '655 patent sets forth any particular limiting definition for, or would even define by implication, “output media format” consistent with the meaning now urged by Owner. We also disagree with Owner that the patent teaches that the problem solved by the invention is “the easy conversion of any video to a commonly used format for writing Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 9 to CD or DVD, which can be displayed by a consumer’s DVD player on any television.” App. Br. 10. A specific problem addressed by the patent was the supposed prior art requirement of requiring intermediary files when performing video conversion (e.g., col. 2, ll. 63-67; col. 3, ll. 54-57; col. 5, ll. 4-20). Converting without the use of one or more intermediary files is not a requirement of patent claim 1, nor a feature alleged to be missing from Cleaner 5. Finally, even if the “desired” output media format as claimed were to require “a possibility” of “receiving one of a plurality of output media formats” (App. Br. 11), the Examiner has shown in Cleaner 5 the selection of either of the plurality of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 output media formats (RAN 12-13, 27-28). A code directed to resizing the raw video information in the uncompressed format into a size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard Owner does not dispute that in Cleaner 5 the user can select an MPEG format directed to two different TV standards -- NTSC and PAL -- with their associated standard image sizes. See RAN 18-19. Owner argues, however, that the claimed code resizes video “automatically” and does not read on a user selecting the video size based on her/her knowledge of the media formats and TV standards. App. Br. 13. Owner then addresses a portion of Cleaner 5 that the rejection does not rely upon for describing the “resizing” as claimed -- a later portion of the reference that describes another Cleaner 5 feature that, according to Owner, “merely allows the user to select any video size.” Id. at 14. However, the fact that Cleaner 5 may disclose additional Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 10 features outside the scope of the subject patent’s claims does not demonstrate lack of anticipation. We find no satisfactory response to the Examiner’s finding that in Cleaner 5, responsive to the user selecting the NTSC or PAL option, the raw video information would be resized in accordance with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard. RAN 18-19. Nor do we find any satisfactory response to the Examiner’s further findings (id. at 29) with respect to how selecting between NTSC and PAL in Cleaner 5 resizes the raw video information as claimed. A code directed to adjusting the uncompressed format in the size associated with the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to a frame rate associated with the desired TV standard Owner again inserts the word “automatically” into the claim and argues that Cleaner 5 does not disclose code “automatically” adjusting the frame rate of raw video to a rate associated with a TV Standard input. App. Br. 15. Owner submits that nowhere does Cleaner 5 disclose that it has code “for adjusting the frame rate based on receiving NTSC or PAL as an input.” Id. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 fails to distinguish over Cleaner 5, which discloses both the frame rates associated with each TV standard and the user’s ability to select the frame rate. See RAN 19. Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 11 A code directed to processing the elementary video stream with audio information in the desired output media format and the desired TV standard to form video and audio information in a presentation format based upon the desired output media format and the desired TV standard Claim 1 further requires a “presentation format.” According to Owner, “presentation format” is a term of art “in the DVD optical disk art.” App. Br. 16. As support, Owner refers to US Patent 5,608,909 and US Patent 5,581,760. The '909 patent and the '760 patent, however, are clearly not within the “DVD optical disk art.” The two patents, which have the same assignee and common inventors, are directed to an object-oriented approach to document processing. The '760 patent states (col. 1, ll. 47-48) that “[a] presentation format is a format in which the data is easily displayed on an output device.” However, the statement when read in context refers to a “compound document” (col. 1, ll. 16-52; Fig. 2), which is an electronic document that contains information in various formats. The '909 patent has identical words concerning a “presentation format” (col. 2, ll. 2-3), but again is referring to a “compound document” (col. 1, l. 38 et seq.; Fig. 1). Further, we disagree with Owner to the extent that, even in the art pertinent to the '909 patent and the '760 patent, the evidence does not tend to show that “‘presentation format’ is sometimes referred to as presentation data.” App. Br. 16. On the contrary, “[d]ata stored according to a presentation format is sometimes referred to as presentation data.” '909 patent col. 2, ll. 16-18 (emphasis added). Of the other evidence relied upon by Owner as establishing that “presentation format” has a special meaning to the artisan, it appears that Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 12 only the Taylor reference, at page 285, is alleged to contain the term “presentation format” (App. Br. 18). However, we have not considered the cited evidence in Taylor because it has not been provided to us. See App. Br. Evidence Appendix (at 50), Exhibit 21, “Jim Taylor, DVD Demystified, McGraw-Hill, 2d edition, pp. 268-269” (emphasis added).3 Moreover, even that alleged quotation does not indicate the meaning of the generic term “presentation format,” but refers to the “DVD-video” presentation format. Accordingly, Owner has not established that “presentation format” refers to the Video Object (VOB) file for DVD and its equivalent for other output media formats, or “a specific format for video and audio information on an optical disk media that is recognized by a player for the media format. The presentation format cannot be any format, but must be the final format read from the disk for playback such as the video object for DVD (VOB).” App. Br. 21. Owner submitted (July 16, 2010) and later withdrew a proposed amendment to claim 1 that makes plain how Owner wishes “presentation format” to be interpreted: “being the specific format for writing video and audio information to an optical disk for playback of the desired output media format using the desired TV standard.” However, based on the lack of 3 We observe that even the two pages that have been provided have not been submitted as required. See 37 C.F.R. 41.67(c)(1)( (ix) in pertinent part: “Evidence appendix . An appendix containing copies of any evidence submitted pursuant to §§ 1.130, 1.131, or 1.132 of this title or of any other evidence entered by the examiner and relied upon by appellant in the appeal, along with a statement setting forth where in the record that evidence was entered in the record by the examiner. Reference to unentered evidence is not permitted in the brief” (second emphasis added). Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 13 evidence Owner provided in support of the position of how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the term “presentation format,” and the lack of a clear definition set forth in the patent disclosure with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480, we conclude that Owner’s proffered definition is not the broadest reasonable definition consistent with the Specification that is required in this proceeding. An example of “presentation format” is provided at page 206 of Cleaner 5. RAN 19-20. MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 streams have video and audio multiplexed into a single file, which is in “presentation format” consistent with claim 1. As such, video and audio information in a “presentation format” is based on the desired MPEG output media format and the desired TV standard (e.g., NTSC). The Examiner finds that Cleaner 5 discloses another example of a “presentation format” at pages 206 and 209. RAN 22. The reference provides that: “The Video CD format is a standard that plays in most DVD players. It requires MPEG-l video and special Video CD formatting. You can easily produce MPEG-1 files for your Video CD projects in Cleaner by selecting the Video CD preset in the Advanced Settings window.” Cleaner 5 at 209. The “presentation format” referenced by the Examiner is not, as alleged by Owner (App. Br. 23-24), the same as the “output media format.” Consistent with the language of claim 1, the presentation format is “based upon the desired output media format and the desired TV standard.” That is, with the settings described by Cleaner 5, with an MPEG-1 video based on the desired output media format (MPEG-1) and the desired TV standard (e.g., NTSC), and with further selection of the “Video CD preset,” the Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 14 resultant MPEG-1 output further contains “special Video CD formatting” -- the result is in “presentation format.” Section 102(b) -- Claims 5-8, 10, 11 and Cleaner 5 Each of claims 5-8, 10, and 11 depend from claim 1, directly or indirectly. Claim 5 recites “wherein the desired output media format is selected from a group consisting of: DVD, VCD, and Super VCD.” With respect to the Video CD preset of Cleaner 5, contrary to Owner’s argument, the reference does not disclose “output in files or streams such as described in the MPEG encoding specification.” App. Br. 25. Cleaner 5, at 209, states that the Video CD format “requires MPEG-1 video and special Video CD formatting.” With respect to claim 6, the Examiner refers to, inter alia, Cleaner 5’s disclosure that the data rate affects the final image and sound quality of the movie (Cleaner at 59), that Cleaner 5 has a default setting for DVD-Video’s data rate (at 62), and that the user has control over the data rate (at 63). RAN 21. Further, the reference discloses, in the same section, that MPEG-2 is the format used for DVD-Video. Cleaner 5 thus provides more than adequate support for the finding that it describes code directed to inputting a quality setting based upon a third input when the desired output media format is DVD as recited in claim 6. We further observe that the claim does not recite a quality setting based upon a third input only when the desired output media format is DVD. For claim 7, Owner acknowledges that Cleaner 5 discloses writing video and audio information in the form of a QuickTime file to CD-ROM or Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 15 DVD-ROM (at 144), but contends that the writing is not video “according to an output media format (DVD, VCD, or SVCD specification).” App. Br. 26. First, claim 7 does not recite writing the information in an “output media format,” but in a “presentation format.” Second, the QuickTime file on disk as described by Cleaner 5 is in a “presentation format” for the purposes of claim 7, because the video and audio information can be (at least) rendered at a computer by means of a software QuickTime player (e.g., Cleaner 5 at 211).4 With respect to claim 8, Owner relies on the argument that Cleaner 5 is not capable of creating a “presentation format.” As previously discussed in our review of the rejection of claim 1, we disagree that the “presentation format” requires the capability of being played by a consumer’s DVD player. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the audio information is tuned to a desired frequency based upon the desired output media format.” The rejection of claim 10 refers to Cleaner 5 at 212, which discloses that “a user may use MP3 audio files and ‘the MP3 default rate is 44.1 kHz, which is also the sample rate of audio CDs.’” RAN 22-23. 4 Although Owner does not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 7, we observe that QuickTime and MPEG have separate formats. See Cleaner 5 at 141; 143-181. Writing a QuickTime file to an optical disk in the “presentation format” of base claim 1 is not consistent with the rejection of that claim, which reads the terms on MPEG selections and operations described by the reference. However, an output file (e.g., the multiplexed file at Cleaner 206) was normally written at least to a computer (fixed or removable) disk, or onto a “disk media” within the requirements of claim 7. Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 16 Cleaner 5 at 212 describes creating MP3 audio files. However, the first paragraph of page 212 indicates that MP3 is an “audio-only” format. Cleaner 5 at 211 notes that very few MPEG-1 playback systems can correctly process an MP3 (audio) inside an MPEG-1 file. Cleaner 5 provides an example of creating a QuickTime movie with the audio track encoded as an MP3. Cleaner 5 at 214 and 153. Requester is correct (Resp. Br. 15-16) to the extent that claim 10 may be directed to an audio format. But base claim 1 recites a code directed to processing the elementary video stream with audio information “in the desired output media format.” The rejection of claim 10 fails to account for the audio information being processed with the elementary video stream to form “video and audio information in a presentation format” as recited in the base claim. No explanation is offered with respect to how the “audio-only” MP3 files might relate to the “desired output media format,” or how Cleaner 5’s disclosure of creating a QuickTime movie with an MP3-encoded audio track might meet all the requirements of claim 10, in view of its incorporation of base claim 1. Claim 11 is also rejected for anticipation over Cleaner 5, but incorporates the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Section 102(b) -- Conclusion For the foregoing reasons and in view of the claims argued by Owner, we sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-18 but do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11. See 37 C.F.R. 41.67(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 17 Section 103(a) -- Cleaner 5 and Cleaner MPEG Charger Because we find that claim 5, 6, and 8 are anticipated by Cleaner 5, and Owner’s arguments rely on the supposed deficiencies of Cleaner 5, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection over Cleaner 5 and Cleaner MPEG Charger. A claim that is anticipated by a reference is also obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, since “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” See, e.g., Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974). We note, however, that Cleaner MPEG Charger as applied in the rejection adds little to Cleaner 5 with respect to demonstrating obviousness of the subject matter of claims 5, 6, and 8. Cleaner MPEG Charger (at 9) notes that it adds feature enhancements for controlling MPEG-1 and MPEG- 2 encoding, most of which are not addressed by dependent claims 5, 6, and 8. See also Cleaner 5 at 205 (upgrade to Charger for additional presets beyond NTSC and PAL); at 206 (use Charger for additional image sizes and display aspect ratios), and at 208-09 (need Charger for variable bitrate encoding). At most, the additional feature of variable bitrate encoding might be considered a “quality setting” as recited in claim 6. Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 18 DECISION The Examiner’s decision adverse to the patentability of claims 1-18 is affirmed with respect to claim 1-9 and 12-18 but reversed with respect to claims 10 and 11. Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.304(a), 1.956, and 41.79(e). AFFIRMED-IN-PART KMF Appeal 2012-006989 Reexamination Control 95/001,284 Patent US 7,009,655 B2 19 Patent Owner: Steve Y. Cho AMPACC LAW GROUP 6100 219th Street SW, Suite 580 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Tel: 425-348-3500 Third Party Requester: Tracy Druce James P. Murphy Brian McKnight NOVAK DRUCE + QUIGG, LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Wells Fargo Plaza, 53rd Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: 713-571-3400