Ex Parte Denton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12985862 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/985,862 01/06/2011
73552 7590 05/06/2016
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/SFC
1211 SW Fifth Ave.
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark S. DENTON
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.
36142.00 5186
EXAMINER
DA VIS, SHENG HAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKS. DENTON
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
Technology Center 1700
Before GEORGE C. BEST, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. Because our affirmance with respect to claim 5 relies
upon findings of fact and reasoning that differ from the Examiner's, we
designate our affirmance of claim 5 as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is Kurion, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as relating to a system for
pyrolyzing and vitrifying radioactive waste materials in order to reduce the
volume of waste material and to prevent leaching or leaking of radioactivity
into the environment. Spec. ,-r 3. In some embodiments, the system includes
a microwave system for treating the radioactive waste material. Id. at ,-r 8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for pyrolyzing and vitrifying radioactive waste
compnsmg:
a canister to receive radioactive waste and to store vitrified
radioactive waste, the canister including an inner layer fabricated
from a material adapted to contain molten radioactive waste, an
outer layer adapted for long-term storage of vitrified radioactive
waste product, and a layer of insulation between the inner layer
and the outer layer;
induction coils to inductively heat radioactive waste in the
canister; and
a microwave source to direct microwaves at radioactive
waste in the canister in order to heat the radioactive waste in the
canister, such that when a layer of radioactive waste is added to
the canister, the layer of radioactive waste is heated by
microwaves and inductive heating until the layer of radioactive
waste in the canister is pyrolyzed and becomes molten, such that
when the molten waste cools, additional layers of radioactive
waste are sequentially added, heated, pyrolyzed, and cooled to
form a vitrified waste product, until the canister is filled with a
desired volume of vitrified waste product.
2
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below when rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Igarashi
Powell et al.
(hereinafter, "Powell")
Gotovchikov et al.
(hereinafter, "Gotovchikov")
Hesbol et al.
(hereinafter, "Hesbol")
Assigned to Ebara Mfg. Co. Ltd.
(hereinafter, "Ebara")
us 5,304, 701
us 5,678,237
us 5,882,581
us 5,909,654
JP 77048280B
REJECTIONS
Apr. 19, 1994
Oct. 14, 1997
Mar. 16, 1999
June 1, 1999
Dec. 8, 1977
Claims 1-82 stand rejected; claims 9-16 have been cancelled. Appeal
Br. 5---6. The Examiner specified the following rejections:
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Powell, Igarashi, and Ebara.
Ans. 3.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Powell, Igarashi, and Ebara, and
Gotovchikov. Id. at 6.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Powell, Igarashi, and Ebara,
and Hesbol. Id. at 7.
2 Appellant correctly notes that claim 5 was not specifically addressed in the
July 18, 2013, Final Rejection. Appeal Br. 12. The January 22, 2014,
Advisory Action, and the July 18, 2013, Office Action Summary, however,
state that claims 1-8 are rejected.
3
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2--4 or 6-8. We therefore
limit our discussion to claims 1 and 5. Claims 2--4 and 6-8 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (citation omitted). Each issue identified by Appellant is
addressed below.
Appellant's arguments only address the Examiner's application of the
Powell and Igarashi references. The Examiner explains that Powell
describes "a method of in-situ vitrification of waste material in a disposable
can .... " Final Act. 4 (citing Powell Abstract). Igarashi describes "using a
reactor to heat the waste material using radioactive heat .... " Id. at 5
(citing Igarashi 3:5-8). The Examiner explains that it would have been
obvious to combine both microwave heating and induction coils, as
described by Igarashi, into the in-container induction coil heating process
described by Powell in order to advance decontamination. Id. at 5---6.
Appellant attempts to distinguish Powell because Powell teaches use
of an inner alumina liner but "[i]n the present Application, the graphite
crucible is in direct contact with the molten radioactive waste." Appeal Br.
13. This argument fails because claim 1 does not require graphite and does
not require that the graphite crucible be in direct contact with the waste.
Ans. 9. Moreover, Powell is best read as teaching that a variety of materials,
including graphite, could be used for its inner surface. Ans. 4--5; Powell
4
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
4:25--41. Powell's reference to an inner alumina liner is merely a preferable
example. Powell 4:38--41; 12:26-30.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's rejection is improper
because the furnace of Igarashi "is not designed for long-term storage of
vitrified wastes .... " Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
however, is based on the combination of Igarashi with Powell and Ebara.
Final Act. 4---6; Ans. 9. Appellant does not persuasively dispute that Powell
teaches cans designed for long-term waste storage and does not persuasively
counter the Examiner's cogent explanation (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 9-10) for
why one of skill would have combined Powell and Igarashi. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant also argues that Igarashi does not teach use of a microwave
and heating coils "at the same time." Appeal Br. 15-16 (emphasis omitted).
This argument also fails because it does not address the Examiner's
combination of references.
Moreover, claim 1 does not require simultaneous use of the
microwave source and induction coils. Rather, claim 1 's recitation "to direct
microwaves at radioactive waste in the canister ... until the canister is filled
with a desired volume of vitrified waste product" is functional. While a
patent applicant may recite features structurally or functionally, "choosing to
define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk."
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In particular, where
there is reason to believe that prior art structure is inherently capable of
performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show
5
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from
the prior art structure. See id.; In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA
1981) (affirming rejections where applicant failed to show that prior art
structures were not inherently capable of functioning as claimed invention).
Here, Igarashi explains that its microwave heating is directed "inside of the
container." Igarashi 3: 6-11; Final Act. 5---6. Appellant does not explain
how the structure of claim 1 is patentably distinct from this structure.
Appellant also notes that "a purpose of the present application is to
eliminate the need for a heating electrode (10) within the container as taught
in much of the prior art." Appeal Br. 16. Claim 1 is not limited in this
fashion, however, so this argument does not distinguish from the prior art.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1--4 and 6-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 but, as Appellant notes (Appeal Br.
12), did not specifically address claim 5. Because the Examiner does not
provide a rationale for rejecting claim 5, we cannot affirm the Examiner's
rejection on the record before us.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
For the reasons set forth below, we reject claim 5 is unpatentable as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Powell, Igarashi,
and Ebara.
Claim 5 recites: "The system of Claim 1 further comprising a
waveguide to focus microwaves from the microwave source." As a
threshold matter, the Examiner explains why claim 1 would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of the combination of Powell,
6
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
lgarashi, and Ebara. We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and
conclusions in this regard. Final Act 4---6; Ans. 3---6, 9-10. Additionally, for
the reasons explained above, we do not agree with the Appellant's
arguments opposing to those findings of fact and conclusions.
With respect to the additional recitation of claim 5, Igarashi explains
that its microwave apparatus includes a waveguide to focus microwaves
from the microwave source:
Further, an electromagnetic horn for irradiating microwaves toward
the inside of the container may be disposed at the top of the container
so as to heat the surface portion of the glass and the wastes inside the
container by using the electromagnetic horn while performing the
power supply heating by the electrodes.
Igarashi 3: 6-11. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the
electromagnetic horn taught by Igarashi is a waveguide that focuses
microwaves from the microwave source. See, e.g., U. A. Bakshi, et al.,
Antennas & Wave Propagation, 6-1, 6-2 (1st ed. 2008) ("A horn antenna is
nothing but a flared out or opened out waveguide. The main function of the
horn antenna is to produce an [sic] uniform phase front with a [sic] aperture
larger than waveguide to give higher directivity.").
Igarashi and Powell relate to the same problem of treating waste
materials. Igarashi, abstract; Powell, abstract. A person of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized from Igarashi that the electromagnetic horn
waveguide is useful for focusing microwaves (and thus the microwaves'
heating effect) to a desired area. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have
expected that use of the electromagnetic horn waveguide could improve the
heating process in containers described by Powell in the same manner it
improves the heating process of Igarashi. Use of Igarashi' s electromagnetic
horn to improve Powell is no more than predictable use of prior art elements
7
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
according to their established functions. Thus, we conclude that this
combination is obvious. Cf KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
Because our affirmance relies upon factual findings and reasoning that
differ from the Examiner, we designate the affirmance as a new ground of
rejection. See In reLeithem, 661F.3d1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-8
is AFFIRMED. Because the Examiner did not provide reasoning for
rejecting claim 5, we cannot affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 5. We,
however, reject claim 5 as unpatentable as obvious in view of Powell,
Igarashi, and Ebara for the reasons explained above.
Regarding the affirmed rejections (claims 1--4 and 6-8), 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(l) provides "Appellant may file a single request for rehearing
within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board."
With regard to the new ground of rejection (claim 5), 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph
shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also
provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF
THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as
to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
8
Appeal2014-008883
Application 12/985,862
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which
event the proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
Should Appellant elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 3 7 C.F.R. § 41. 50(b )( 1 ), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141or145 with respect to the affirmed rejections
(claims 1--4 and 6-8), the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until
conclusion of the prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident
to the limited prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
result in allowance of the application, abandonment, or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final action
on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.
AFFIRMED; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9
Notice of References Cited
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY
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-
*
Document Number Date
Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY
N
0
p
Q
R
s
T
Application/Control No.
12/985,862
Examiner
Davis, Sheng Han
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
Name
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Country
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
Name
Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent
Appeal No.
2014-008883
Art Unit
1732
I Page 1 of 1
Classification
Classification
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
u U. A. Bakshi, et al., Antennas & Wave Propagation, 6-I, 6-2 (1st ed. 2008).
v
w
x
*A copy of this reference 1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 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.

A:~ ~~~N~ ~~~¢~"'.'::~~ '~*~.1~~~1):..:~<~ ~~>:k~)~k_~:~ .. N::.> :~-:.i:;;:~: '>~: ~~~~· ~>:>:~: ~:.:"K::~~ ·~}~
~~~~~~t:N.~~·~ ::~ ~'!'>~~· kN{n .. fl~:)~:~"!':(:~ ~~:-±~~k,f.>L ~~~'.t;;~~~ {l~' {~~~:.~ ~~h.~;-r~~{~X;~:-} ~~~~~Y~::~~ ~~:-~i
t~~~~,'-G~ ~~~t«m w:t~::M~ ~;. .. "{(::;- ~*'";:-~;)~~kN~ ~~( w::~~~~-- ~~ r~·~~ki)~ ~.th~:i:.;~~~~~~~:.::::. ~W·~,
1'¢chttk:~l f\d:>!jrutl:t}~~ !"'m"l~"'
~ ~ ·: .. ~~~ ·~~:~ ~ ~ ~.~ $.~ ..... ~ ~t~ :~~: • ~ "!: ~ ~}J.:}. :l°'t'.~:
~o:n~,'»~
s,..,_ ~~·~,~'-.":><'m!.' a~~l.<:'m\<' ~.; ~hi:.> i:mfJ".1-}fl:ant d • .,,~ \)! fr1•~ ;i,~•:im1;~>1.:'>.· T!w ;sp.'i.\AAr~ing fam.Hi-M' ~i) tl~ fayn"'~n iri i\)<;!'1:)% !ifo b<~""'''J:J>.~ Qf Ow ltKm;i:,~~~g; '~t~lM!x'l ~l* •·~'f)'
~·(kli>.'lio::,~\:1:,,,_t m;t~:JmM> ·~!: 1>''tJ)' fo~t1 frt:'q<~:;..~~d~"i; "'udi .;i_>.; VH!\ Ufff .;md mkm>¥.'
f<'"-"X{~Wm:.it~ (m;:!: (l'$ th<:' m<".<:'lt. i>lmpl~ form t}f !lw ;ii*rtmt.> an~~'•W~' fr~~1~mnqr ~$< !h~ hAArn , §.~~~w ~nt<:"~'~"' tlM
i*"N<' wkMy ~i~~J iti :;;::1;;ic"t:::im :bi:' fh;:i>h nl<)ti:nl:\."-~ ~~l lh!.' t:ra1ls. 1-.'!fortks,>dy, SiJ<:;h Huit:!: ma:1.<.'l fmm tru~ 1mo,,'it1:1>.'1mtmraf h,1.,:.imkru~ cm·sdHk~<1-'> l:l~· pmt~~:til\11: th~'nl wifu &
d~d~~J~k :ili>st.\.~fr1l: \'.'ti~:~t.. M~Wl~i~·~t t'h:.~ hm11 mt·~~'ttSiS:~ i"ti~}."!~, r<1.<:.lio Mtrn:rK~my ;:;t;st1mis imd lim<:'mm.s an~ kns
•~•li:<:n.~~h~$. H h; C<.~'iimrn'ily n:>tx~ &s tt::i:'<-fo~g 0km0rn iti tti<:' P~'*~:;;l Mta)'~·- It <>'<-'lt'-''•% as. a
~Mfl:clil'l>i frir .w1i:n nw:m;0nt &i1d (':i'!Hbtrnfo.wi lm'r high g.ii!m ant~m1&:;;,
11w l~$~<' &{>p!k:;:itu~1n oJ till:' k--r1<> l..<> ti_) '-'~~U.hn;~k &h·~tgoo~ "'"''°'lltY arn.t f.m-~'crH lt fa'(~:n
~p~~~t~Hn~~ in ·~.~:f:!i:!t;.,"""~~t~~~j d.~~~:tit~n:"$.- fi~-:n.:..~-r::~ ~h~'!i l-ens-t~"$. (.":*:1~ ~"!' ~}b.~Xi tir~ tr~~~~h.>1'n1 dh·~~~~=~
~,:n~'t~Y in!:{; ~hte p!m~~ w.-w"'":JS by pwf""'d)' ~h>&pi~~ lht' k~~ g<.."<.'>m<:,tri~a!ly .-md $S:-k·cttns
:ti&t l'iw km <1:nk~13' ,~re tn~)$'t wlclec1y \l~--cl fo hl&hm· fr~~mm<..'}" t;ing;:
whm~ dlm~wk~ti:I< .1rd w~ghl <..'If l'M k>:<1~':& ~-:.'.rlll:«:~ o;m.a!kr. ··The ren~ il~tt::'l'li1r i~~ ~::m~:Stt"™-"~~Qt~ ~~· lb:!.> 1-'<~~ii:il:"ti~"'! i~p~
t>f n~ i~'il:.~'$.
l.i'i lhl~ i:-haptn Wl~ wm d'~:S fml>1&m~rn1 n'~\,'S:'}ii, .dl:ffot•mii iyfl'&'i' {'if i:IW tmm ;m.t..~\l'll!:.s~i~'l.
Th<.' h~)m, ilk!~' u:>t'Xl: :s!mpfo~ forrn: i)f ili'<". ~:nlnin,~. ··ri~
}mm >AA~M~n;i $.~tV<.'h~~
&:rsd :~i~d!H:,," trnddng tht{)~~~hi.wt Uw w~'?M .. A~ it ~· ~>'iddy ':1:~i M fok~w··~~·•: ft~,l~~1'>d~,
it m:i~· 1'*' (\li:1::'iklt>rerl ,&$. ;m ;~p:~-tmw >1nt~\t'l.
Thi:' hx>m ~~nwnrni .:::an ~t.> ~~,~iid~{ © ,~ Wg~tkfo wi:th h;~~u~~~v ptpl:~ tJf ,;_Uffot~nt
~~-\:~~ ~%.~i°h~~~~ "~·hkl:. b.: H;.:\R":c.i '\"..tl tai~~\.~t ll"lt-:) i:l: 'hn.-:gi:~· t~}~:t.~if:ig, V·lh~n '.C)tW ~l'l<.i <~i t.h-t~
Wi!H'~~1~kk' fa; ~'xdi~!d whHi~ (~U~n' ·m'l !n ~~1:it~fl &f);K1i" in .(;.~"".e::i~~.)~:d.t\ :~hi~· .?.?.il~-~1:L~ asni~~~1:::-:i:f t."tf ~tu~~ pt.l·~·~"i~s· §s~ d1'l:~
hidd~~~t W l't'<:-'1:: <>j:~<~(~~ i:> r~;~~ tc~~\(~~\'.t At lh>! x,'t'!~:> \':r rnak~ti:i.m. AJ$>'~ l!w rndiMk1~< r"'~ttlc~m j~: rn:·~o--dfr~Jh·~~.
ltl (t.tlW~- t<~ {~·~·~\-t-:t(~~~H! t~~ htftH>lh~~~~*.. ~h.~ S:lU::~~~h ,·)f :ti~· ~'l;,~2v~g.t.~:sd~· ~~. f§2;:·~.~ <..'>:f
~~P"""*"~ ~~~•t ~~K:h !.!wt it '''°""~~:m .. ~:::. ~h~p~! lik"~ h(•m~ Si:mfan lyp~ ,1f (<)(1't'!ifois~ '""·~ h;i,•'e
l'>i~gHif><.>N!ci j;_~~t, dlpd>.t i~ d:>tais~xl lfa~ ,~d"'~mta.fle j;_~
~n'"n~rs~~t~t~~ th~~ S"i.,:--}~v~~gukt~~· :~n~n ~n ~~:~:::x~~J'(t~1:"f.l~~"fl:r.:l~:: fu}.rs~ l~ tho:~t in$·h:!'.c;~d i~f '\":!:pt:~~ ~~~~x:uH 0:1~
>>lW <'l'Wt ~>f thx' \"""''"~>tWi·dk\. ptnp~dy ~h~~"t ~t>Sdw.~l ttmi.,~:itlm\ ~~lo:;~~ pk~c~~, Unde:t !fu~
t..::O:t~~Ji:~.~)t~ oJ .P'n.J~>t::t ~n~pi~;;.i;.~:r~{~'.! t1·i;3:~~:hh1~~~ d:U:') t};~!:"~il pf:flr-\f~!" ht~~:~:-i:i-t):f~~: lt>~Hl ht~ l~"i-i..l~:..'li:t~J fas
fon\ !n<:W'.:i™-~t A:<. the l"'-i:§<~ <1:l'-I:' fli!x~Ki ~en~: >~Nf~:N~~~ .fa ~m "S.~fs~"t~q'·f' ~f.~t-=.~'t.t~~ ~~~kk~ .~s ~J.';i.t'd j:;;} p~~t~r:.;:·riy n~~·.ds i:k~~
~.,_'.:i:{'~~~;.~-j:$~~'-k ~~:.t ~·u;;.".;~~ g~~l~1~ng ::>~/~:~~~~ fr~ .~ s~~:-~~~~: ::-~~~tt:tti~~s:· »-.. P~":~~~tf ~~· :#t...~p~}~~· th~:· .~~~~~~Jk::tt
fft?~~~f~~~~l.t\.t.. i'k.r.!· ~~r~~Y ;;~;i~!-r.~:~t~-t"' i;.; -~~!t:f:t.&:r:?.y :ti~ i~t}r~:~~· ~;~fr'$~-11t~ft:!{ .m:;d ff~ ~~n~t~~l'.!:· t..tfk:w .. ~~t
r:ss.R~it.i(:-t~ nt w·ith <1 ;1p.::-rtm't' bl),.-"lft«~ .ai'l3 :fo-d >1-'ifu d:ic<::s ~fo!w ii' t->iw ;.:lit""~ti*m t.>nly, A
&i:'df~rnl l'wm l:;i fott!:'~r ffa~~:ifl.•'<.i it5 f~pb,#~ ~: JS!.'durnl hm:n .. Tlw.
~"pl'>m:>-i ~~'t~ln:l h . t~i* in IC~ dir:t:°""il® ~1f t~ ~.l:t.''d"k
fi~~d Y~lt.i:ic'r. 'H~ l,J.pfa~·~ ;$~.;t~nd lwni !:.» <¥l:~ikm $:>f
ilw r~'':"lg;Mli\:C ftdd >''<:-'<':t,;_1\'.. fo b.~h ih~ E>pl~N:~ ati:d H·f)fa~~ z.i.x:Mrnl l-mrn'>, fux- fi;irlr.:g b
dm~~ ;:sk1t\i;: !h~ 1>in~l~ waU d ~ht~ >~ ;~!'I'd H·plm'l.t' S.:l:d.-:1tat h~)tl) ~~' ·~<> »~w~1 l:n the fig. t<.J ~:>l) >~lm !h)
:«'"'1'*'1::~h'l/'l~<.