Ex Parte Balabhadrapatruni et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 22, 2019

14665379 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/665,379 03/23/2015 37945 7590 01/24/2019 DUKEW. YEE YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Venkatuday M. Balabhadrapatruni 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CAM920140036US1 9278 EXAMINER LYONS, ANDREW M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2019 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VENKATUDAY M. BALABHADRAPATRUNI, MELVINE. FOWLER II, MICHAELS. FULTON, GARYI. MAZO, and BRIAN W. SVIHOVEC Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9-28, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1-8 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention tracks control for computing tasks by (1) receiving a reference to a control file specifying a computing task; (2) receiving an identifier for a performance of the specified computing task in accordance with a control file; (3) storing information associating the identifier and the reference; and (4) returning the reference in response to receiving a request for information associated with the identifier. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 3. Claim 9 is illustrative: 9. A system for tracking control for computing tasks compnsmg: at least one processor configured to: receive a reference to a control file specifying a computing task; submit the specified task for performance on a computing system in accordance with the control file; receive an identifier for the performance of the task; receive a request from a user to link the identifier with the control file; in response to the request, store information associating the identifier and the reference; receive a request for information, the request including the identifier; and in response return the associated reference. 2 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable overNalis et al. (US 9,111,037 Bl; Aug. 18, 2015) and Headley et al. (US 7,386,586 Bl; June 10, 2008). Final Act. 3-8. 2,3 The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nalis, Headley, and Sirota et al. (US 2014/0330981 Al; Nov. 6, 2014). Final Act. 8-12. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nalis, Headley, and Archie et al. (US 5,021,997; June 4, 1991). Final Act. 12-14. The Examiner rejected claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nalis, Headley, Sirota, and Archie. Final Act. 15-17. The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nalis, Headley, Sirota, Archie, and Patil (US 2003/0051188 Al; Mar. 13, 2003). Final Act. 17-18. The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nalis, Headley, Sirota, Archie, and Campion et al. (US 2009/0007074 Al; Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 18-19. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed Aug. 11, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 7, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Jan. 2, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed Jan. 11, 2018. 3 Claim 17 is mistakenly included in the header for this rejection (Final Act. 3), but otherwise does not appear in the body of the rejection (id. at 3-8). For clarity, we present the correct claim listing here, and treat the Examiner's error as harmless. 3 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 RELATED APPEAL Appellants do not identify any related appeals. See App. Br. 3. We note, however, that there is at least one related appeal for Application No. 14/923,803 (Appeal No. 2018-002742). THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NALIS AND HEADLEY The Examiner finds that N alis discloses many recited elements of independent claim 9 including, among other things, receiving a reference to a control file specifying a computing task. Final Act. 3; Ans. 20-23. The Examiner also finds that Nalis receives an identifier for the performance of the computing task. Final Act. 3--4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Nalis does not receive a request from a user to link the identifier with the control file and store information associating the identifier and the reference responsive to the request, the Examiner nonetheless cites Headley for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 4--5. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Nalis is misplaced because, among other things, Nalis' Job Control Language (JCL) test is not a "control file" as claimed. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, Nalis' JCL test is a computing task that is to be performed in accordance with a control file. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue the Examiner cannot change the mapping of the claimed "reference" from being Nalis' location of a JCL test to Nalis' "Job Name." App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Headley's submission of a job by a user is not equivalent to (1) requesting that an 4 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 identifier be linked to a control file, and storing information associating the identifier and the reference responsive to the request. Id. at 12. ISSUES I. UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Nalis and Headley collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) receiving a reference to a control file specifying a computing task as recited in claim 9? (2) receiving a request from a user to link an identifier with the control file and storing information associating the identifier and the reference in response to the request as recited in claim 9? (3) the reference including a storage location of the control file as recited in claim 13? ( 4) the returned associated reference including the storage location of the control file as recited in claim 14? II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS Claims 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 20 Claim 9 recites, in pertinent part, at least one processor configured to "receive a reference to a control file specifying a computing task." As noted previously, Appellants dispute the Examiner's reliance on Nalis' JCL test for teaching the recited "control file specifying a computing task." According to Appellants, Nalis' JCL test is not a control file, but rather the computing 5 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 task that the control file specifies. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. We, therefore, begin by construing the term "control file." Notably, Appellants' Specification does not define the term "control file." As shown in Appellants' Figure 1, "control files 116 ( e.g., JCL files)" specify requests to run jobs. Spec. ,r 12 (emphasis added). Paragraph 10 of Appellants' Specification further explains "controls ... (e.g., batch scripts, programs, processes, etc.)" are used to perform the computing tasks.) (emphasis added). Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3), our emphasis underscores that these forms of control files disclosed in Appellants' Specification are merely exemplary. Accord App. Br. 9 (recognizing the term "control file" as described in paragraph 10 of Appellants' Specification may be a script, program, process, etc.). The plain meaning of the term "file" is "a basic unit of storage that enables a computer to distinguish one set of information from another. A file is the 'glue' that binds a conglomeration of instructions ... into a coherent unit that a user can retrieve." MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 211 (5th ed. 2002). Nalis' primary database includes a test repository that stores a JCL test. Nalis col. 5, 11. 5-9; col. 6, 11. 15-20. Nalis' mainframe computing system obtains the JCL test from the test repository. Id. col. 6, 11. 20-22. This functionality, then, at least suggests Nalis' JCL test is a control file. Moreover, Nalis' obtained JCL test is executed by the mainframe computing system. See id. col. 6, 11. 18-24. This functionality, then, at least suggests Nalis' JCL test further specifies a computing task. Claim 9 further recites two separate instances of the term "reference"-(A) receive a reference to a control file specifying a computing task, and (B) return the associated reference in response to a 6 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 request for information. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding step (A)'s reference as being Nalis' location of a JCL test and step (B)'s reference as being Nalis' "Job Name." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. We, therefore, construe the term "reference." Notably, Appellants' Specification does not define the term "reference." Paragraph 1 7 of Appellants' Specification explains "a reference (e.g., a URL, filename, etc.) to the control file 116 ... specifies the instructions to be performed for the job." (emphasis added). Appellants' Figure 4 illustrates "[an] example reference 420 to a job's control file." Spec. ,r 25 ( emphasis added). Our emphasis underscores that, although these descriptions inform our construction of the term "reference," they do not limit our interpretation. Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants' Specification, we interpret the term "reference" according to its plain meaning, namely something that refers. See MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 982 (n. def. 3) (10th ed. 1993) (defining a "reference" as "something that refers."). With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's finding that Nalis' JCL "test name and/or location are the reference to the control file." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9; Ans. 3, 9. We emphasize "and/or" here because, contrary to Appellants' argument (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4), the Examiner maps Nalis' test name or location----or both-to the claimed reference. Nalis' testing client selects a JCL test to run on a mainframe computing system and sends a request for a location of the selected JCL test to a primary database. Nalis col. 5, 1. 65---col. 6, 1. 4. In response, a record for a test result is created in the primary database including a test name and 7 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 JCL location for the selected JCL test. Id. col. 6, 11. 7-9. This functionality, then, at least suggests Nalis' test name or JCL location as being something that refers to the selected JCL test. Nor do we find availing Appellants' argument that the claimed reference can be either Nalis' test name or location of the selected JCL test, but not both. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 4. We find it is reasonable for the Examiner to combine Nalis' test name and location of the selected JCL test to satisfy the claimed reference. In other words, the Examiner's interpretation of the two prior art elements, i.e., Nalis' test name and JCL location as being something that refers to the selected JCL test. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on Headley for at least suggesting receiving a request from a user to link an identifier with a control file and, in response to the request, storing information associating the identifier and a reference, as recited in claim 9. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. As the Examiner indicates, in response to Headley's user creating a job, an Explorer view displays (1) all jobs, (2) the runs for each job, (3) the location for eachjob in a job directory, and (4) the ID for eachjob. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Headley col. 5, 11. 24--27, 44--67; col. 7, 11. 36-48; col. 8, 1. 49-col. 10, 1. 15; col. 15, 11. 32--48; col. 24, 11. 18--40). Headley's system allows a user to schedule a new job. Headley col. 5, 11. 41--43; col. 9, 11. 46-50. In response, Headley's new job is saved in a central repository and local repository. Id. col. 7, 11. 40--46. This functionality, then, at least suggests that Headley's new job is a control file. Headley discloses generating a unique job ID for the new job. Id. col. 13, 11. 50-56. This functionality, then, at least suggests receiving a request for a 8 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 new job (the claimed "request") from a user to link the new job's unique job ID (the claimed "identifier") with the new job (the claimed "control file"). Headley's user views jobs and the runs for eachjob in an Explorer view. Id. col. 24, 11. 20-21. Headley's Figure 32 illustrates a hierarchy of folders that sort jobs and their runs. Id. col. 24, 11. 25-36; Fig. 32. Headley's Figure 36 shows in one embodiment a column format when using an Explorer view and is reproduced below. Di rector Exol orer View - ProVisi on Jobs Qlall8J Ei!e !;dit '1'.is'l1 Iools Window !:!alp ID 1~19l II\? IIEl BÂ·'fW i>r~Visbn Jobs .... JOB ID I DESCRI PT!ON I PRODUCT I J0:3 GROUP 1 ... = B46 E20 TS1VU t.D All JDbs LI Jobs By Group 864 DAO CompaE1SOfl â€¢ 1 DAO 2.0.0 875 DAO Output -Collectioo - ORA73CAO DEJECT 03-~F.R-98 1 DAO 2.0.0 ,-[;!-Â·CJ Jobs By rJode 882 flec-rg OraclE Table.! =coNs_r,o J 0 TSR2.2 I e-G d!'t!U!Ua 883 fle,19 Oml~ TallieÂ· [ FCOflS_Dil j 0 :SR22 : : ~-CJ1AII Jobs Anv Sta111.s - 888 Rearg Oracle Table Â· ! FCOt-.lS_rm J 0 TS!< 2.2 : , â€¢ -r:J All Ru ~s E-y Status ~ 890 fleorg Orncle TableÂ· I FCOP.:S_DD J 0 TSR 2.2 ' : m Â·Cl '1elo Jobs 952 QuaJ\llll Reofl) 2 TSH -: : .1-CJ Sciledulsd Jo~s 957 TEST 831 TST\/1.0.0 : IpÂ· dimultrawlv ::;- ~g ~~~IR~urg 2 TSR -~-~ :â€¢ ,--. " ... ti I Iâ€¢ 0 I r â€¢ Ready FIG. 36 Headley's column format in Figure 36. Headley's Figure 36 illustrates a left panel including the hierarchy of folders illustrated in Figure 32. Id. col. 25, 11. 43---63; col. 26, 11. 15-50. Headley's Figure 36 further illustrates that, when a user selects text of the "All Jobs Any Status" folder in the hierarchy of folders, a right panel displays columns including a unique job ID number and description of each job in the "All Jobs Any Status" folder. Id. col. 26, 11. 44--50. This functionality, then, at least suggests that responsive to receiving a request for a new job (the claimed "request"), information associating the unique job ID 9 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 of the new job (the claimed "identifier") and a description of the new job ( the claimed "reference") is stored. Lastly, we find no error in the Examiner's articulated reason to combine the references, namely modifying N alis' tracking system by ( 1) organizing data regarding each job and/or run, and (2) enabling user access to such information using an Explorer view. Final Act. 5. These proposed enhancements to Nalis use prior art elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 12-13), the Examiner's proposed combination is not based solely on impermissible hindsight, but rather supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9, and claims 10, 15, 16, 19, and 20 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 13 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 13 (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 26), which recites, in part, the reference includes a storage location of the control file. According to the Examiner, Nalis' location of a JCL test is retrieved upon selecting the JCL test for execution. Ans. 26 (citing Nalis Fig. 6). We, therefore, presume the Examiner finds Nalis' location of a JCL test as including the selected JCL test. We see no error in the Examiner's finding in this regard given the scope and breadth of the term "including" which is 10 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 not defined in the Specification and, therefore, is construed with its plain meaning. The term "include" is defined as "[t]o take in as a part." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 913 (v. def. 1) (3rd ed. 1992). Given this broad definition, the location of a JCL test nonetheless takes in as a part the JCL test when the location of the JCL test is retrieved in response to selecting the JCL test. The Examiner further finds Headley' s node at which a specifically identified job is stored teaches a storage location. Ans. 26 ( citing Headley Figs. 34, 37); see also Final Act. 6-7. We see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Headley merely for this limited purpose. Accordingly, contrary to Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 13-14), the Examiner's rejection is not based on Headley alone, but rather the collective teachings ofNalis and Headley-the former's teachings regarding the location of a JCL test as including the JCL test. In short, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that modifying Nalis' selected JCL test (the claimed "control file") to include a storage location, such as that in Headley, would have been at least an obvious variation. Therefore, Appellants' arguments regarding Headley's individual shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13. 11 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 Claim 14 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 14 (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 27), which depends from claim 13 and adds that the returned associated reference includes the storage location of the control file. Contrary to Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 14--15), the Examiner's "rejection of claim 14 is not based on the disclosure of Headley alone, but instead ... the combination ofNalis and Headley" (Ans. 27}-the former's teachings regarding "the use of a control file" (id.). In short, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that modifying Nalis' selected JCL test (the claimed "control file") to include a storage location, such as that in Headley, would have been at least an obvious variation. Therefore, Appellants' arguments regarding Headley's individual shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NALIS, HEADLEY, AND ARCHIE Claims 11 and 17 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11 (Final Act. 13; Ans. 28) reciting, in pertinent part, determining that the control file has been modified since submitting the specified task. In the rejection, the Examiner finds Archie's test is downloaded to a target processor that runs the test. Ans. 28. Notably, the Examiner finds Archie's "MODIFIED field" includes information regarding "whether the 12 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 test has been modified since it was submitted for execution (i.e., on the target processor)." Id. (citing Archie col. 10, 11. 13--48). The Examiner proposes to combine this teaching with Nalis and Headley's system. Final Act. 13. Archie's test is stored in a test storage hierarchy. Archie col. 5, 11. 50- 51; Fig. 1. Archie's BDLOAD process then places the test in an output file for downloading to a target processor. Id. col. 5, 11. 62---65; Fig. 1. Archie's BRUN process then executes the downloaded test on the target processor. Id. col. 5, 11. 65---67. Archie's BS TORE process then stores the test results in a results database in a RUNINFO record. Id. col. 6, 11. 1--4; col. 9, 11. 18-20; Fig. 5. Archie's RUNINFO record includes a component TYPE field that assigns a "MODIFIED" identifier to the component TYPE field if the test was modified since being downloaded. Id. col. 9, 11. 32-36. Thus, Archie's assignment of the "MODIFIED" identifier, then, at least suggests a determination that the test has been modified since being downloaded. Appellants' contention that Archie's determination (that its test was modified) occurs before the test's execution (App. Br. 16 (citing Archie col. 15, 1. 65---col. 17, 1. 2)) is unavailing, because it does not address the Examiner's findings. That is, claim 11 recites determining "that the control file has been modified since the submitting of the specified task," which the Examiner explains is similar to Archie's downloading of a test to a target processor. See Ans. 28. Thus, Archie's execution of a test is comparable to Appellants' unclaimed step of performing the task, not the claimed submission of a task for performance. Appellants provide no persuasive argument why the Examiner erred in finding Archie's disclosure of assigning a "MODIFIED" identifier if "the test had been modified since it 13 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 was downloaded from the test storage hierarchy" (Archie col. 9, 11. 32-36 ( emphasis added)) teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of determining "that the control file has been modified since the submitting of the specified task." Appellants' argument that Archie's determination that the test was modified is before the execution of the test does not demonstrate error in the Examiner's finding that Archie's determination that the test was modified occurs since the test was downloaded. Nor do we find availing Appellants' contention that Archie's test is not a control file that has been modified since the submitting of a specified task. App. Br. 17. Notably, the Examiner's rejection is not based on Archie alone, but rather the collective teachings ofNalis, Headley, and Archie- Nalis' teachings including a selected JCL test (the claimed "control file") and a task the JCL test specifies as noted above. Therefore, such individual attacks on Archie's alleged shortcomings in this regard do not show non- obviousness where, as here, the Examiner's rejection relies on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 and claim 17 not argued separately with particularity. Claims 12 and 18 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 12 (Final Act. 14; Ans. 28-29), which recites, in part, returning the associated reference comprises returning an indication that the control file has been modified since the submitting of the specified task. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 18), we see no error in the Examiner's 14 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 finding that Archie at least suggests returning an indication that the control file has been modified since the submitting of the specified task. To be sure, Archie does not state explicitly that this data is returned as Appellants indicate. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner's findings in this regard given the scope and breadth of the term "returning" which is not defined in the Specification and, therefore, is construed with its plain meaning. The term "return" is defined as "to send back." MERRIAM- WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1001 (vb. def. 3a). Archie's user is prompted as to which fields of a RUNINFO record the user wishes to display. See Archie col. 13, 11. 30-34; Fig. 8. Archie, then, at least suggests sending back the RUNINFO record to the user when the RUNINFO record is displayed to the user. As discussed above, Archie's RUNINFO record includes a component TYPE field that is assigned a "MODIFIED" identifier if the test was modified since being downloaded. Id. col. 9, 11. 32-36. Archie, then, at least suggests sending back a component TYPE field that is assigned the "MODIFIED" identifier if the test was modified since being downloaded, and when the RUNINFO record is displayed to the user. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 and claim 18 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NALIS, HEADLEY, AND SIROTA We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 21. Final Act. 8-12. Although Appellants nominally argue this claim separately, Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those made in 15 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 connection with claims 9, 13, and 14. See App. Br. 18-19. We are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons previously discussed. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NALIS, HEADLEY, SIROTA, AND ARCHIE We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 22- 26. Final Act. 15-17. Although Appellants nominally argue these claims separately, Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those made in connection with claim 11. See App. Br. 19-20. We are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons previously discussed. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 27 and 28. Final Act. 17-19. Because Appellants do not contest these rejections, they are summarily sustained. See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner's answer."). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9-28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 16 Appeal2018-002579 Application 14/665,379 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 9--28 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F.R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 ). See 3 7 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Notice of References Cited 14/665,379 2018-002579 Examiner Art Unit 2191 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language V Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fifth Edition w Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Page 1 of 1 Classification Classification i.:;: .... ~-...~ ~Â·,,r ..... ~~ ...... - ~" ~:Â·' :Â·.:.;_:Â· ... ,/-?":Â·::Â·i :.::.:Â·:, ~:}:-;: .. ;Â·~Â·::::.: . .:)r: :.:,i: :_.:Â·.â€¢â€¢:' ~-~Â·:).:: .~.=~ l~:,.:Â·r ...... ,_, Â·. : ... > .,., .... ,:-...... : ":,,:; :~Â·= :.~Â·: :Â·:Â·~: ,~Â·r ;.~~-.Â· ~- .:.~. ~ ~: Â·~.:.: :Â·.:-{:<Â·~~ ~~-; : ...... : ......... :; : ........ : ... <: ..... ; :.;. .. ,._._ .. Â·~ ~-~Â·Â·Â· r/:,~~1(~Â·~;.;_t:Â·~.: \? ;:~3 ::~~t;;;;~.:...':~'.:.~Â·~~t i {;,::"" s::.:f[:>d.:ty ::.:.:. =:~-~-=~~- :Â·~Â·:.::.::\::~Â·:Â·::::~Â·:Â·Â·k. (\~p::-Â·r.:./:Â·:,~ ,..,... :Â·~:::-~~ by g,_: .. ~:f1:t(,?~ :'J;Â·:t?:~c ;Â·~~:Â· ... ~.;::p~~i\'/ \L ~-~gJ).t .. ; ~Â·\'::Â·.:;<::Â·:,::Â·:Â·} . .. ,?:Â·::.:Â·: ::--!Â· b~Â· .:=:::.:.:,.Â· ~:::â€¢:Â·:J::Â·:,"3 ~:/.::.:...-:Â·:Â·::,:_:Â·r:;..:Â· Â·)t Â·:Â·:,_:_:.:'(Â·1.~n;~:Â·:.::-L \~:(l(.:/:.i:r:g :"'.';:":Â·: ,::.;~:.:>::Â·>~-; :3~Â·~d r,:Â·<Â·â€¢>:'('.\~Â·:Â·;:r ,)':Â· ).::Â·y ;:{':"(/ r~~f:Â·;.r_~::.":.~:\:-:;:~Â·i :;:~;)r:::'.g<Â· ::-.;: -~ (:Â·:.::j.rÂ·"-;. :Â·.-Â·--; :Â·Â· ... "> "'-.;"' \ ~-; :.~ ~. \.h::: r,::-.'~\)~ :,,:,.,Â·:Â·~ ;J.â€¢::-::';. ..... Â·.::.Â·~-.:<,_..:. :'.ti.:')h.:;; (':Â·.:Â·:::Â·:p~-:r:.,:-Â· ~.,_::::,~s:: Â·.-~x::::.h -:..~,::\.;Â·Â· .:.~~ :.:: .. /~.d~Â·3 ~Â·{;Â·Â·$'$ :\Â·Â·Â·Â·:-Â·: Â·.:.Â·.:.'/_~-= _.:\.~Â·~:;..:~~Â·i:::.~:_~-:_ h~:ri~::~:::.::.:Â·Â· .-3_~;~:~Â·i:::Â·:Â·_;:::::Â·y ,:::.f :Â·.~Â·::':Â· ~-:~~- .... -~Â·. :_; .:.~ .. Â· .. :-:-Â·-~Â·-~:.-.:', ... :_:fd fd .:: :.hz~Â· {~"\;.::_..':,:Â· (:'Â£ :Â·~}~; :.::i(â€¢,\;_: ~':'~{'~~. :~ ..â€¢ '~ ::~':::.::.i,:~.:.:;:')' ~ ::: :Â·:~Â·:::{~(; :Â·);Â·; t.} â€¢ ., . ..;:., ,-.v,Â·. ~.-.Â·,Â· ''-' '-'-'-Â·. :,-Â· ~ -â€¢ .. Â·.:''S)}:;;;,;i:;:i;.Â· Â·Â·Â·:Â·-, .. Â·Â·Â·-~ :Â·,:- :Â· .:~;::' -:~. Â·:.:Â·. Â·.Â·.: ~-- :~â€¢:-::: ~r~ ... Â·d~sd~ (;.~ ... x: :Â·:-:Â·:(: ,Â· :- :::Â· Â· -,~~k~d .. :-:)~~Â· .. "~~k:-d .. ~~~~-Â· ---~~k:Â·~~~~, ~ .. Â·::>Â·: ~;>~:-,: .:.:-;_ ;:.-:..:-: !Â· â€¢â€¢ :.Â·= . â€¢ -â€¢.. Â·.: ..â€¢â€¢â€¢ ~ '"Â·.::. ::-:-Â· :, y~~:-::-:::~-:.:Â·,. ~. Â·r .. :-. Â·'"'"Â·'Â·:-Â·>.-.. }, .- ~:~-.:~ ...... ~:,~,::~Â·: .. ,_._; :.:::..:..~:-:_:.::Â·:Â·::.~Â·-,::: Â·Â·_. Â· .â€¢ :::: .. -<'â€¢.;,..__ ~~-- -~~(:::,:,,Â·.:-~,~:~,:'>' .. '.;fr.._Â·.Â·Â·~Â·;:--~~,:..Â·-:: m-. ::.,::Â·: ~Â·:â€¢:-::::Â· :,::z~Y,,,,â€¢,,, .:~.:'d -~~'\\.._',-' ,, .. :,'-' 0:,:â€¢: -â€¢. .-- .... :.-., .... Â·. ;:~:: :_:Â·~:::{~:-Â·,'.::-: ,,Â·:_::.:!-:..~ :-:~~~::::; :::~:::.~ :::Â·:-:: !:.:-::: . .:. :~:-~Â·Â·Â·::.:' ~;,-_:,.,::.:::~~r<.: ~:-::;,~> ;-..,:(,.:... :--.-:::::::. ~;(~..:_. :::~-:Â·.:~â€¢:- >â€¢i-:::--:.Â·:-: :~~Â· .::.-~)~').._.~~r;s,~. :Â·.::Â·):: r:Â·:-...: .. :.r:::Â·;:,.':Â·~; ~-:.z-::-:. : .,:,.~"<-Â·- â€¢. :Â·.Â·Â·~Â·"Â· :: :':,:,:::~Â·::::::. -~. ?.,~.:,:-~2::.;:~:-,:.-:.~:;.>:. _:~.-,:Â·:~~~Â·.-_~ :,;,:.: ,. .. ,,~ :, ..... v . .,,Â· ......... Â·.Â·Â·-Â· ..... :-:. -~ ~:. . '-. ' ::- . :-; ,:â€¢: ., .. ;.~~:l ,:~Â·-~~?(,. ~t~,Â·~-:ts.~Â·Â·:EÂ·J::..~n -i!:Â·: .. ::d(;.: .. ;-::Â·h.-:Â·:~~ ~;.. ~~ T~~Â·:.: :.,-..-~ Â·Â·Â·? ;Â·::Â· ~~~~~:t:::: , ... , :~,r Â·:Â·::.:: ,Â·,: ;_._:: :Â·):'-:.::,? ~~Â· .. -:: ! ::,:1~:._-:. Â·:~. ~:::Â·::-:xÂ·::::::-:.;: Â·::Â·,Â·Â· L:-.}~ .. -.~. ~::_ (;~-:-.Â·~,:.-~;;:.,.Â· :-~ i~, Â·' (~)ijÂ· Â·Â· r~~ Â·Â· t~1 h~~,~:-.~.. '..\.': ~:; , .. ..- .. ,:. ~ ~n ,â€¢ ~~-:.-:-.ij V ~i ,â€¢t,~ ~~~,~)~, ~-;,:::.~: ,.,: .--~: . .,;5"~):!-':-. ~. -~,::.:.:Â· h1 .. (:{.~ij ~ S"~~ ~' ~"'~::,~-~ ::~:~--;Â·" .-.~~~~i- '..'.'Â·"~~-~~ .-y( ::: ..:-;Â·z~:::~:!:-::-:_.;.;;- :::Â·::~Â·Â·:::Â·.:;.:: :-:: :,Â·,;_:,:t:~:.-:~i::Â·-:- :-: ~ :)f ~-:~vÂ· :~vÂ·â€¢â€¢Â· fr~ ... ~-:.:~~~ ... -h~~~- ., ~~f~<:-::~ ::~:-: .â€¢ :::.:>. :::;;,;- :.,i:â€¢:::: Â·: ~' ~~v Â·Â·x~ h:.:Â·::~;: it:Â·.~:..:::.~Â·,-~Â·.,;:,. ~. ~.:_:Â·:::::.,: t_~;,:;,::::.r .-.(~~, .. .--~-. ~~"~Â·,Â·~--:.ts,h*r, ... ~3:-n .. (y ,~~-~ i-:<:--h~, .~: .. :-'"-~.-::, ~: :.:Â·i. ,-~:i,;,.;;Â·~.- :Â·:::Â·:,: ~J~'- ::itâ€¢:-.::...,:--)" { :Â·!: ~:Â· ,Â·Â·::: h:3Â·,Â·::(rÂ·Â· .::_~: , ..................................................................................................................................................... ... PlIBLISHED BY MKrn.Â·ml't Press A 01~.-i;:io:s1 of 1Itr:ro~:oft c~.)tpo'.r,\fion One :Mic:ros1)ft 'i:V2y Redutond_. '\\! ~r:Jhngi on 93GS2--6?,99 ... 411 -right:; reteri;.?ed. i{o p~ut t)f the ctu~tentsÂ· of ~1si~: hook n:~.J)' .. De reÂ·prDd~r:ed t~ uan.:;rnHted in at~y fon:n or hy .3.fiY Â·n-1e3nÂ·: '!.~:it.~{H3.t the ,,:-ritte11 pt;."n.ti-s.sian cf tht" _p:ubli:her. P- C~3l- :t3B!{ 0-7.3~~6--149:5-4 AQ76.5. 1fi2267 :?li02 004~_D3--.dc21 2:G'Dl-19714. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q\VT 765432 1.flr:nJ:}oft :Press hook~ ~tre ~1v0:;J~1W.e diro~Jgb. book:e.He::::s ~3lid thstri:bnto:r::. ~':-'orkh~~~~. ~For frtrther in.fot1n~i-Â· tion Jbot1~ intetn~:honzi1 et.hJior~::;~ cont~ct yoÂ·u.r lo.:::.:J ~.fic1uGoft Ccrtport~faon oft1cÂ·e or [':Qntact l\.:ticro-soft P1e~-3. Ir~te:rn:1tic1uli direr.tty ;)J fRx (-425) 936-7~~2.9" '\.!i~::it Oltr \'\teb :ite &t ~v\~"''\,Â·Â·.tnic.n:.t~oft:.tÂ·ru1:1i1n::-.:1).tf''3.'3 .. Acfave: De~:i-;.top, ... ~4,c.ti~:Â·e. Directory, Acti~:e1ioYie~ .. :\~ti~ .. :e:3to1e~ .. :\cti'..-~:3yn~. i~ctir.,_;:e}C .lluthel1facod~ .. BackOffice:. BizTalk~ CJearT'YJ...~- Direct}fJ: Dift:-';-ti~~in1ati011, DirectDr~~Y1/: Dife:e.th:~p::;3.t~ Direct1Â·hDic-, Di:i:ec:tP1:l)'.. DiH-:ctS:l:ii:}w .. DfrectSmi.m\ Direc:tX. EntaRrn.ge .. FoxP:rn, FrmitFage, Hotmz:i.1- In,erl.iP.ye. fateili.MotVie. fotelliSe1,5t, JS(Â·n:pt, MapPci!tt, 11:icrnwft ~b::1Â·0-,oft Pre-,-,., Mobile Expla.re;;, M'.:l-DOJ, MS?{ M:i.1~k Ce.11t1:&L NeHVIeefing, Cfotfonk. PhataDrnw, Pm.'T. Xb:c:s: a,:e eit.hertegistered n.,,,:knu1Â·k, or tr:1dl:'B1Mk; of Minosaft Cm:pm:z:fio.a isi. th~ lfo.i;ed State,; 1i11e/m: Gfaer ;::mmn::ie:, .. Othl:'1 _prndiKt and r:{n:npa:ny nZ!:n~2 inentior1ed.hereirl inay be the tradei-nark:::- of their respe.c.tive tn~=Â·n.erss, T11e exan!p1e co1~lJ.l=Jrties~ org~:sniz~~~ion::.: .. psÂ·odiJ.rt:s. tlon1~~ll1 na1:nes.~ e-sr~.ail ;1dd1esse:::. logos~ peopleÂ·. p1~'.:ces. .. ~ui{i e:,:ent::: de_pi.r:3~d .h~rein J.:s-e fictitions No &~~rn::iJtÂ°Snn \~.jth 2n1yÂ· .1eal co:nipn:.n.y: .. 01gr~11.iz.:::.:ti-rn1. produ.[:t, da:ff~3i.n 1i.,;1rne~ r.-Â·n1z1il ~~~Â·Jdre::.:::.:, logo .. pesÂ·s.on. pÂ·h-...ce .. or eÂ·,)eltt.i.-s intended t:ff :hou1rl be UtfeÂ·n~d. AcqnhH:hm:s Editor: Alex Bfa.rikm Prnjed Editor: S.:ll1dr,2 Hayne:, {~.x;_=unpk---~ alpJ1~:i.fx--:ti<'. ntnnt':ri~: ! ~::,r fhiancj.a{) ttH~f -c:an bt"'= pktt::fx~ ~J~ therB~ ~rhe f~KÂ·tH~y ft)rcit::::1th1gth{.Â°!~e s.pl~cHica-Â· tio.ns BsuaHy b: .c:Qnh:d:ne:J. ~n ahe dI~ta Jx">:fi.nihon tinguage (f)[H .. }, tfi ~"t~!at3Qna~ .Â£f:.:H~tl'$:at~i fnan~~~e.n1e~tt \'fstens:.;~ :fie~ds are c~~lh:.~ -c-Dh1.uu.u. 2, :~ ~pace iJ:1 an .on--3~""-ft'Â·en forrn \)"-/ht":re the: H$er cBn enh::~r a. ~p~ific :~t.~fB c~f ~:afcwrnat~-on .. f}eld..ette:d transistor n. See FE'L Field PtogrnnirmdJ!e Gate AtÂ·rn}' fl. Se<' FPGA. fieldÂ·ptograrmnahle logic army n. i\n iim'grnk'J cin:uit i::ontaining an ,::1-nÂ·ay of k,git .. -: .::;in .. -:~J~ts ~n \~:h~ch the: c:on- nedkms betwee11 U1e l.11iiivhiu;.iJ ~,irenits. and Hm1-: thr: h.J:g)c. funchork~ of the :arn1y, can b~ pnJgn.unn1.:::.i:J after n1~u1ufac:ture .. t}ph:::-~ttJ::t a~ the tin1e \~f insh:iJJ~~t:i(~n :ln th~ neld. Prqgr~~HHs1~n.g .i:;an btÂ· pt':rforn1~d only .oÂ·n:i:..~.e~ lypi- Â£:.aHy hy pas:~:ing high -current through fus~hk: U:nts. OJ'."t ~he= chip. /i(:rr;;::~ytn: FP1 .... i).(,, .AL~<.t fÂ·a.Jlt."'d:= PL}\ .. pro,gr~~3n- field separ.~tot n . . :\ny chHtpt(t dt~\Â·Â·:k:e .. file allocation tah!e n A,. table or H,t mainti>in,xl by sorn;;:: nÂ·per&ting s.:v~~lt"::rns. tn nKtn.age dt:,;k ~pace us.ed fnr file stontg.e. f'He.!": Pn .a dh.:k afe s.:tnfecl:... a~ ~.pac::: a~Jo,\,Â·s., h.1 fix;;::d-5.iz;;:: groups. .:)f b~{te~ (ch.arac.ten;} rather th~n Â·trnrn beg~nnSng to end u:s ('"C';:nt(guous string\ pf te:xt -or :ntunhe:rs.. i\. 5-Engk~ fd~ t~an. thus. t:.::~ ~c-~~u:.::.:-r<:Â·d in pk~(.:~s. .::n:r:r In~tn)â€¢ ~:e-p~u1~te s:torage ru"ea_~:. :A fde aH~x-~~~i.::Jn ta:b]e n1aps. ~e,,aH- ;;hk Jhk .$trn:ai:i't 'Spa.:~ "'-(;. that lt ;;;u, i:nark Hmvt:d st:g- n10nts that ~-.JK;.uki. not ~: Bs.ed ~1:nd s-.... -:;..1:n fir::. ,;;he ,,r ,1 file for tran~;Â·n~i~.;~.;fnn or ~:ti::rage .. :-'5Â°l~,~ l.i/::.<:J data cornpn~-:;s.:fort me cm,tm! hltH::k n, A sma.H bk,ck of nwmMy kmp,)- nffHy a~s~gned. b)' ~i ctHTiputer"$ or,~r~~ting ~yst:::rn to hc~}d lflforrnmfon nhow .an ,,p.:,n,;,d file, .A !'ik U)fli:wl t.k,d: typ- ic::::1-i~~:t cont.a~n~ ~u:eh in.frHTB~1tion ~1:f,. ~h(!: fiie~s id::::ntific.~:.:rt~on~ it:,,; k:tcatS('tB -CJn I~ disk~ and. a pÂ·cÂ·:i.nter that .n~arks the us:.e(Â·~ ntrn~m: (;.:1 pri-- n1Hri~y \Y~fu n1ainfr~n11e cÂ·)atYq~uters) to i\S(]l ch;;1r;;1c:tt"'.:r~;. Se,,' aho ASCII. EBCDlC. fl!e form,:1t n. The strm::ture of a file th;it dd'\m.,& the ,.'>'!' fr,t.'c spa;;.:e ~arge .:::ni:)ugh to ho{i:J th:.'!fft:~ FEh: i~ragn1ent:::1tk~n ~~ nt"ft an ~nteg-fity prohlefi~" -~~hh.;.)B_gh h can -eventu.:~H} s:kr\v ri:<3.:d ;1_ad ..,_~,.ril.::: at-:c.:::~:~: !i_as,;;~; tf the ~Ji~-ik i~ vt~r;:Â· ~l~Jl fHl.~-ai:--0 produ{'t"& Hre ;;r~:~iH~ih~e for n ... ~ii!';~rHtuttng (rc:phsni1.iLBÂ§J {He $tor-ag~Â· to redu'-:e fE .. \_~~nt~n- HihÂ·OH~ 2. In i.l dat~~h~rs.c~ ~:l s~tuf~hon in \~Â·hic.h R~.(.~ord& an.~. n~Jt !':ot:ored tn their <>ptfina~ ai;,_-:(:C~$.: ~-t:q:~~eni:e be,t;_\u:..;;.:: of at:(:H- n1utated ~~dtiftio:n:,; and <<<< .,,.:,.:-:,.:-:-..,,,,,,-...,-..-..,.,,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. .................................... :,.:,.:,.:-x,,,,,,-... ... -...,-...,-..-..,,,,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,. ....................................... :,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:.,,,,,,,,,,'-"'''"'"''""""""""""""""""""""" T.ENTH EDITIO_ ,v 11, Ji O WM~,, Ji!!, lÂ©tl, w;,,ts, â€¢mi I Â· 11111!1!1!11!1!1111 I â€¢â€¢ -Â·,Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·ic!II!Ii:::::1,1 "~""Â·Â·Â· ... "'_._1111111111111111111!11111 Â·tf~r::s::.~y <:.f (\J~:frt:~.,;: (:~;J:..:.~tD. Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· {SJ$N ~}-~:77~?~}. 7~(\-2 tJ~.-:h:.:H:}.. ... ,. !S:HN' ~:~-~7T?~'.,7(fl.<~ 0.fr:nh~z.t.\::f~ z;.:._1~,~~d. 1 'E(1t~~d~ t~nsÂ·:.s~::if::Â·Â·Â·Â·l'Jktfr.::~~::.xri~':~, i. ~itn-SÂ·:E:..ri>.~-\\\~~~st~:Â·:-} t;x;. PE~t~J~~-f--Â·t~f, 1.9~}~; i? ~ ,t:- .. !O ~ J.~.~f>~f~{ ! :Â·>:Â· ~!!Â·} ;.~~~~:.:~>)::;:{c ..â€¢. ~ ,:..,:::Â·Â·~Â· H~~~t 5x ~::~:'{:~:Â·:::,i ?~[@\~::::..:,'::~::::-~X::(~~.~ !Â·~, L /'., ............ ~~'-'., :-Â·:-Â· Â·Â·< .,,,., ~'.~\~~i~~>fr, :--.:.:-::-\:,,_. -~- ~:-.:}.:-r,:- ,.":,:, ..:.~fr,Â·s.:Â· .,,~ ::::~,:::::s.' ;:,;:. I\J;~1~It~t~~;;;~:i il~;;J;~t~;i~~1i\g~i:~'.i~:~~':,~~~ii~}~,t~~ttS fl(\~i\ =-:: {;:~~;,:3-;, ~ ~x::-;~_-._:-R:Â·:,::_-:{f:Â·~Â· Â·@::::::::::~.: .. X~w:..,. ,:,3. S{.,,, ... ~-:, . . ,k.;,., :Â· ,,:.;:,. b,z:.,:;:-.~~-=- ':3'>:-f!:,.<: 11\1\r~~r t~t.\~:~! ;;i;t~~;~~:f~:~~::~;}~\\{.f, ,;:-~:c;:~.~ .. i:-:~, 11:};t;::~ri:::f i~ttt:,1::\ti~li1tt;~;; :~i: ti;Wft!/;,;:::}~:'I::,, t ,,tÂ·,.:\\G ;;~/t/t;~, H'i .}~ff.f::. ~~r, ~~~:~~~x~ ~~~') ~Â·g, ..:.:,.-: .. ~~~~ :::::,:~K -~)~~, ::Â·:-~..:.kâ€¢ "''''"':Â·Â· :!Â§:.%{%:,:>ti<)ll \,.,.,,,r:/ik,,,,,;,,:s,\,: ()i:',,) Â·,: ,,,,, ~~~:;:::~~~') :: H~Â·:- ~~-:-:~}:.:fa:,:~ Â·:-:.:~t:k :-:-~ fa:: :...: :fff~):::~:~tÂ· :!-{ ;.:Â·â€¢\:-..:-::~~ ~:-t !:Â·~::-:t-.:.:~,:~W . .- ...... .-::-. !~~~l~~~~t~~~~;~~,f ~1~;;~:::; ';~r~~ :{:;;~~'.~\ ,:;x,,L'.,;' ;;~ ~;~L,,,;~,;;;:': , .. ,,..,;;,,.<;- .',.,,.L:. ..,mÂ·, .\Â·}:-,ts:Â·.:~}':o:;x:. ': \~: .. 3:-<:-:~~\ -..~:# ~L ~~:,:~~:=-~~Â·:-.::.:. --~-:;:,"):.~. ~:.~ t:::~~Â·Â·ff~::~~-.-..,~:~~ :Â·.~~~. ~ -?~\: Â·~:~:i~);i~I1:::~\f;:\;r~11'.Ir~:t\':,i::,?~.:.~:,I~.:.i~.~-,., .. _.i.t,: .... t.t.,;_.~;_Â·f~~;,'f ... '..: .. '..f.'_t,.:;_.;_: .. ,.',,, :,,~:c~~;:. ,~SÂ· ~):'Â· ~')~:~.:.~~~&~~.:.~::râ€¢:::-::,: $â€¢~~\ -.:,::v:.::fW: ~... â€¢ ... , -..--.. â€¢â€¢ â€¢ ., Â·-.. ,.., l]il~~~i~~:i;~'~;;iÂ£~~i~~ .-. -.~Â·~Â·-Â·Â·-~S.:Â·., ,,_, , ..â€¢.. ~-.. ,..,., ..... K Â·;;:Â·,'.~ . Â·~~',:,'.:_;;,Â·_; â€¢â€¢ ,.~,'_ .. :\_,,:_-.:~.~_:{,.,'.-~,.Â·Â·~.:,_:: ~ .. t;~~~~~~;~:::.~fÂ·(:;.:t~~-(~\;~ .. Â·Â· Â·:~ :. '-~ -.::.::-:k ~5~:,. fr. \tf. ~r. ~--;;,Â·. ,:~..,;::::..~:-.:~Â·Â· ~<:- ~.r::.~.x; r:Â·:r:";:Â· :::::::Â· Â· ......... . \.:~~\~~;:\\~~~:~?:;~ {~}:;~:/~~~::? \h:~,~ ,::/;{; â€¢. , . !~"-Â·': X ,.,.::,_.-,,:_~, fr. tr:::--...:.. -~ ~-.: ~-.~~; ::. ~,.~".'. :>:Â· .,:,;~,Â·~::~'~Â·.,\.â€¢ .â€¢. :.'.\.i.~.~,:_~<:,:_Â·Â·:_;,?_:~~-~;.Â·Â·\.,,~?.>~.:Â·.~-~-~.--~.:ir,:~.;-~ (~;'>~.-.~ 'S :' ~-}..~-: ~~{:~1:Â·fo:,tÂ· i~Â«,:.:::-_.,-...<-..,~i :;l Â·--- , . . â€¢ ..... Â· , ,, , ' ,. ,â€¢";::, -.> ,~Â·:; ?â€¢C:t ,~: Â·:<.:-~,~~: ~Â·x-.-:~ ~,.'.:~ ..... Â·3'.;:~~.-::- {::,:Â·~:~~~ :2:Â· :. ~:f- t;~~~:\~~~l;~ 11i1:Pt!t1!;\f !~~'.1{1f i:I0'. 1 ~l\,.\t.'._~.i_;_:_~',\_lE_;1_:;t~.:.: .. ;,_,}\::-:.\:.Â·?. ::.:1.~_.::_}.\,~. ):..;:;-::;.:~- , i:"iS.!::Â· .... :..:.-::Â·::. n::-:X~ ;:_-;~::., , - , ..... - , ... . . ,,. h: ~Â·x::- :sâ€¢>â€¢.c:\:,': : Â·{~~:::)) $i' '-;,, ~Â·=Â· ,-:~\~J.\' Â·:~ ;Â·Â·~:~~~-;\/t :Â·,:~_:\~} :[:_}~,):, ;",,:,",-...:h~lY"~n' ~' ' ~.~1:,: }.~ ... }. :,..,, ~~1:1::Â· ~:'.{_g~,i~:;t]~;~~sf ~~l\;~;;~:,'J 1:\:I~it~:~~\1;I!t1~Jf t;:~ii;1: !!~ittlf ~l:~!!~l~tf ~:!I~~~ :-'â€¢Â·''-'"~~Â·-:.. -~: x0.~â€¢Â·. Â·. ~~~.:..::Â·~~11-:~ .. :~H~:-,v~ .. :-:.,!.-~ -:~Â·::-:5::!Â·.:~~ :{~~::::. ,:-:-:-~3 s.":-::.:::::n~p~~~~r.:~.- :...:.,~..:..~ ~~~L~'.-~~~g~r~~\~J:.2\~~:~~ ~\Â·:~ !~t~i~~ :~Ir::/\?tL~;~t!t:~;::::~tt~~~r:~~~~~~~~f: ::_,,.s)hfo:~~ ':Â·f d .:-: :":"~<;,;:$i,:Â·!~ ,:_,:: i~'Â·'.-~)fâ€¢ ,:Â§ :r::d~~~~~;:::: b .: X ~;.;:s~~' ;-_~!-;;..:.,~ .â€¢ -:,.1-: ~;~~'~;~'.m1~~;~;;?:;~t~;:~;~;;~~,~~;%r;~~1~~~,,~;';~E,~~;~::~::Â·:;,:~'ti:\~'.r:'.)i :.mÂ·~ -.: ... :.:Lâ€¢.â€¢ (:~1 ;:_,,:' : ... "::Â·->â€¢; .... : .Â· .. :.x,r>:Â· .. t :;;;;~~~;;;;~.il~i~t\~~~-\~:~.; ... :;;:.Â·~;~}('Â·Â· :Â· ~.~; : ::â€¢:Â·t~i.:.::; r:;;.;~~~:Â·Â·~~: ~:~ .,~:- ~~;~:Â·Â·Â·~I~~~:~~:~~i-~~;\~~~/Â· ~-~Â· ~~ \ ~ :~Â«};~{~~~~ :Â·:-~~Â·Â·.~ r~:.:;Â·~~~~~~ â€¢.".'~~~..:..:~ '\~~;~Â·~. ~,'.:::n~::~~~; :::-: .. ~:..x :.-.w: ... ~ h. ~::,,~-=~-.-~<:: â€¢. ~ Z :, 0 .. â€¢.~.-.mÂ· .. t:-:' \.:/:.. :.,:::.,~~~ ,._:,, ;:}f~Â·~:.~. :r :Â·s:.~(:.~!- ':.:.;:::"\ i~r::h::::r \:-~: ~~:~~~ \;";:\ :,~:~: 'X: ~1-:<'.:-h :::~:s~- ,~~,-... . .::-::::: \~:~::\ d::~:; ,,::-~ :-:,,f:: ';,}\ ~:.::::.~Â· \.;::. }:::~ ~;i, :~:~~- ':~\ ~:~,::: \!\ j:t~ ,~~\ ::-!::~~:. i,/:\ ;~:-"!- ";/:~ ~~~- ::~h ::,,:..;))' \::~~: ~~:.:~ \:_t:i., ~-~::-: \fr-:.1-:~"~ \;/\ :\..:-:..,~Â· ,,y\ :?:~:. <~}:.:\ \;:~~~:):~ \~. ~-Â· =Â·,, ;.::,:,.. <~:: ','\::,. <~:;. :Â·~ . . :,:,-~: ($'!~~k ::> t~'>:,~':-:::.:.-..-::.s:::::â€¢:Â·~