Ex Parte Strong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2015

11077273 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/077,273 03/09/2005 Christopher L. Strong 12554.61/YOD/SWA
ITWO:006
4972
7590 07/23/2015
Patrick S. Yoder
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3752
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2015 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
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. STRONG
____________

Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 30–40 and 43–53. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 “The real party in interest is Finishing Brands Holdings Inc.” (Appeal
Br. 2.)
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a system “for reducing
fluid drainage into air passageways of a spray device during disassembly,”
by providing “an internally mountable fluid nozzle” having “a relatively
small internal volume, which reduces the amount of fluid that can be spilled
during disassembly of the spray device.” (See Spec. ¶ 34.)

Illustrative Claim2
30. A system, comprising:
a threadless nozzle that is a one-piece structure, comprising:
a liquid passage extending through the threadless nozzle
from a liquid inlet at a first axial end of the threadless nozzle to
a liquid outlet at a second axial end of the threadless nozzle
opposite the first axial end of the threadless nozzle, wherein the
liquid passage comprises a first conical passage inside the
threadless nozzle adjacent the liquid inlet, a cylindrical passage
inside the threadless nozzle adjacent the liquid outlet, and a
second conical passage inside the threadless nozzle extending
directly from the first conical passage to the cylindrical passage,
wherein the first conical passage converges at a first constant
angle in a downstream direction, the second conical passage
converges at a second constant angle in the downstream
direction, and the first and second constant angles are different
from one another; and
an exterior surface surrounding the liquid passage,
wherein the exterior surface comprises a first conical exterior
surface surrounding the first conical passage, and the first
conical exterior surface diverges at a third constant angle in the
downstream direction.

2 This illustrative claim was quoted from the Claims Appendix (hereinafter
“Claims App.”) contained on pages 35–39 of the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

3
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 37, 47–51, and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. (Answer 4.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 30–40 and 43–53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. (Id.at 6.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 30–36, 38–40, 43–46, 52, and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Haruch (US 6,776,360 B2 issued
Aug. 17, 2004). (Id. at 7.)

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 30, 39, and 47 are each directed to a “system”
comprising a “threadless nozzle that is a one-piece structure.” (Claims
App.) The nozzle comprises a “liquid passage” and an “exterior surface
surrounding the liquid passage.” (Id.) The rest of the claims on appeal (i.e.,
claims 31–38, 40, 43–46, and 48–53) depend directly or ultimately from
claim 30, claim 39, or claim 47, so they are likewise directed to a system
comprising such a threadless nozzle. (Id.)

Rejection I
Dependent Claim 37
Claim 37 depends ultimately from independent claim 30, which
requires the liquid passage to comprise “a liquid inlet,” “a liquid outlet,” “a
first conical passage” and “a second conical passage.” (Claims App.)
Dependent claim 37 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second
conical passages collectively extend along at least half of an entire length of
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

4
the threadless nozzle between the liquid inlet and the liquid outlet.” (Id.)
The Examiner determines that the originally-filed application does not
convey that the inventor had possession of the relative-length range
connoted in this limitation (i.e., “at least half of an entire length of the
threadless nozzle”) at the time the application was filed. (See Answer 4–5.)
The Appellant argues that originally-filed Figure 4 conveys to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the collective extent of the conical passages can
be “at least half of an entire length of the threadless nozzle.” (See Appeal
Br. 7–8.) We are not persuaded by this argument because Figure 4 depicts
the conical passages collectively extending one particular length relative to
the nozzle’s entire length. (See Spec., Fig. 4.) Figure 4 conveys, at most,
one specific relative-length value (e.g., “one exact proportion”) that
corresponds to the illustrated lengths of the conical passages and nozzle.
(See Answer 4–5.) As such, we agree with the Examiner that Figure 4 does
not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the collective extent of the
illustrated conical passages can have a relative length that is “at least half of
the entire length of the threadless nozzle.” (Id. at 11.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Independent Claim 47
Independent claim 47 recites the limitation “wherein the liquid
passage comprises an angled annular interior surface along at least half of an
entire length of the threadless nozzle.” (Claims App.) The Examiner
determines that the originally-filed application does not convey possession
of the recited relative-length range (i.e., “at least half of an entire length of
the threadless nozzle”). (See Answer 5.)
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

5
The Appellant argues that originally-filed Figure 4 conveys that the
angled interior surface can be any of a range of relative lengths that is “at
least half of the entire length of the threadless nozzle.” (See Appeal Br. 9–
10.) For the same reasons discussed above for claim 37, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
Dependent Claims 48–51
Claims 48–51 depend from independent claim 47, so they intrinsically
include the limitation requiring the angled interior surface to be “at least half
of an entire length of the threadless nozzle.” (Claims App.) As such, they
fall with claim 47 for this rejection.
Thus we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48–51 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Dependent Claim 53
Claim 53 depends from independent claim 39, and recites the
limitation “the one-piece structure consists of only the liquid passage and the
exterior surface.” (Claims App.) The Examiner determines that the
originally-filed application does not convey that the disclosed one-piece
structure “consists of only” the liquid passage and exterior surface. (See
Answer 5–6.)
The Appellant argues that originally-filed Figure 4 shows that the
recited consists-of-only feature was in the possession of the inventor at the
time the application was filed. (See Appeal Br. 11.) We are persuaded by
the Appellant’s argument because Figure 4 depicts a one-piece structure 86
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

6
comprising a liquid passage 98 and an exterior surface 94. (See Spec.
Fig. 4.) The Examiner contends that “the one piece structure itself has a
body that forms the passage and exterior surface” so it consists of more (i.e.,
the body material) than the liquid passage and the exterior surface. (Answer
12.) However, we agree with the Appellant that one of ordinary skill would
not interpret this limitation as precluding the structure from having “a body
though and around which the liquid passage and the exterior surface are
formed.” (Reply Br. 4–5.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

Rejection II
Independent Claims 30, 39, and 47
As indicated above, the independent claims are each directed to a
“system” comprising a “nozzle.” (Claims App.) The Examiner contends
that these recitals are “indefinite” because the Appellant “elected ‘a fluid
nozzle’ for prosecution on the merits” and these claims do not “appear to be
directed to the elected invention.” (Answer 6.) In other words, the
Examiner contends the claims are directed to a non-elected invention.
However, the Examiner offers no explanation as to why the claims fail to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention,
albeit the claimed invention is directed to a “system” and/or a non-elected
invention.3 As such, the Examiner does not sufficiently support a
determination that independent claims 30, 39, and 47 are indefinite.

3 We note that issues related to “elected” and “non-elected” inventions are
reviewable by petition (see MPEP § 821.03), not appeal.
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

7
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30, 39, and
47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Dependent Claims 31–37, 43–46, and 49–51
These claims depend directly or ultimately from independent
claim 30, 39, or 47, and thus are directed to a “system” comprising a
“nozzle.” (Claims App.) For the same reasons discussed above, the
Examiner does not sufficiently support a determination that these claims are
indefinite by virtue of being directed to a “system.”4
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31–37,
43–46, and 49–51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Dependent Claims 38, 40, and 48
Claims 38, 40, and 48 each recites limitations regarding an “air flow
exterior surface” and/or an “annular air flow.” (Claim App.) The Examiner
finds air flow is only the result of, or only occurs within, a combination
wherein the nozzle is mounted within a spray gun. (See Answer 6–7.)
According to the Examiner, these limitations are directed to “structural
and/or functional elements beyond that of the elected invention” and are
therefore indefinite. (Id.) As discussed above, the non-elected status of a
claim does not explain why it fails to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter of the invention. As such, the Examiner does not
sufficiently support a determination that dependent claims 38, 40, and 48 are
indefinite.

4 Likewise, the Examiner does not sufficiently support a determination that
dependent claims 38, 40, 48, 52, and 53 (discussed separately below with
respect to other limitations) are indefinite by virtue of being directed to a
“system.”
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

8
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 38, 40, and
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Dependent Claims 52 and 53
As indicated above, independent claims 30 and 39 each recite that the
one-piece structure “comprises” a liquid passage and an exterior surface.
(Claims App.) Claim 52, which depends from claim 30, recites that “the
liquid passage is the only passage.” (Id.) Claim 53, which depends from
claim 39, recites that “the one-piece structure consists of only the liquid
passage and the exterior surface.” (Id.) The Examiner determines these
recitals are indefinite because the “exclusionary” claim language (i.e.,
“only” and “consists of only”) is inconsistent with the “comprising”
transitional phrase recited in claims 30 and 39. (Answer 7.)
The Appellant argues that the language at issue further limits the
subject matter of the independent claims, and does not conflict with their
“comprising” transitional phrases. (Appeal Br. 15–16.) We agree. With
respect to claim 52, a one-piece structure wherein a liquid passage “is the
only passage,” would also be a one-piece structure “comprising” a liquid
passage. With respect to claim 53, a one-piece structure that “consists of
only” a liquid passage and an exterior surface, would also be a one-piece
structure “comprising” a liquid passage and an exterior surface.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 52 and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

Rejection III
As we discuss in detail below, the Examiner finds that Haruch discloses
a nozzle 46 comprising all of the elements set forth in claims 30–36, 38–40,
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

9
43–46, 52, and 53. The Examiner’s findings as to each of the claimed
elements are most effectively summarized by the annotated drawing of
Haruch’s nozzle 46 on page 8 of the Answer, and reproduced below.

The drawing shows a nozzle 46 extracted from Haruch’s Figure 4, with the
Examiner’s typed identifications of the claimed elements. In the interest of
succinctness, we refer to this drawing as “Annotated Nozzle 46.”
Independent Claim 30
Independent claim 30 requires the liquid passage to extend “from a
liquid inlet at a first axial end of the threadless nozzle” and to comprise a
“first conical passage” that is “adjacent the liquid inlet.” (Claims App.) The
Examiner considers a counterbore 80 (the wide cylindrical space upstream
of shoulder 79) in nozzle 46 to be the “liquid inlet” and finds that a first
conical passage is adjacent thereto. (See Annotated Nozzle 46.) The
Examiner explains that claim 30 “does not require the ‘liquid inlet’ to be an
orifice in a two dimensional plane with no length in the longitudinal
direction.” (Answer 16.)
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

10
The Appellant argues that Haruch’s conical passages are both “near
the middle” of nozzle 46, and thus not “adjacent a liquid inlet at an axial end
of the orifice member 46, as required by independent claim 30.” (Reply Br.
11, emphasis omitted.) We are not persuaded by this argument because
claim 30 requires the liquid inlet to be “at a first axial end” and requires the
first conical passageway to be “adjacent the liquid inlet.” (Claims App.)
The open upstream end of counterbore 80 is shown flush with, or “at” the
first axial end of nozzle 46; and the first conical passageway is shown
“adjacent” the downstream end (i.e., shoulder 79) of counterbore 80. (See
Annotated Nozzle 46.)
Independent claim 30 further requires the exterior surface to comprise
“a first conical exterior surface” that “surround[s] the first conical passage”
and that “diverges” at a “constant angle” in the downstream direction.
(Claims App.) The Examiner considers the “exterior upstream end chamfer
of flange 62” to be this first conical exterior surface. (See Annotated
Nozzle 46.) The Examiner explains that “[n]o matter how small the chamfer
surface, the figures show it diverging in the downstream direction.”
(Answer 21.)
The Appellant argues that Haruch does not have a first conical
passage so it cannot have a first conical exterior surface that “surrounds” a
first conical passage. (Appeal Br. 19.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because, as discussed above, the Examiner shows sufficiently that
Haruch discloses the claimed first conical passage. We further note that the
Examiner provides a dictionary definition for the word “surround” and we
agree with the Examiner that the upstream end chamfer of flange 62
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

11
“surrounds” the first conical passage according to this definition. (See
Answer 7, 9.)
The Appellant also argues that “none of the exterior surfaces of the
orifice member 46 of Haruch diverge in a downstream direction.” (Appeal
Br. 19, emphasis omitted.) We are not persuaded by this argument because
the identified chamfer in nozzle 46 slants outwardly (i.e., diverges) in the
downstream direction. (See Annotated Nozzle 46.) The Appellant asserts
that “there is no suggestion in Haruch that the small chamfer surfaces of the
flange 62 converge or diverge at constant angles.” (Reply Br. 17, emphasis
omitted.) However, we find that Haruch shows sufficiently that the
downstream slant of the identified chamfer is at a “constant angle.” (See
Haruch Figure 4.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e.)
Dependent Claim 31
Claim 31 depends from independent claim 30 which recites the “first
conical passage” discussed above, a “second conical passage,” and a
“cylindrical passage.” (Claims App.) Claim 31 requires that the liquid
passage “consists essentially of” these three recited passages. (Id.) The
Examiner construes the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” as
“comprising” and finds that nozzle 46 comprises the three recited passages.
(See Answer 19; see also Annotated Nozzle 46.)
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “comprising” approach is
improper and that nozzle 46 includes “several interior passages” in addition
to the three recited passages. (See Appeal Brief 24–25.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because the Appellant does not establish that the
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

12
alleged “several” additional “interior surfaces” of nozzle 46 materially
change basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. The
Appellant’s comparison of illustrated embodiments of its nozzle and the
prior art nozzle 46 (id.) is not persuasive evidence of such a material change.
It is therefore sufficient for the Examiner to find that nozzle 46 “comprises”
the three passages recited in claim 31. (See MPEP § 2111.03 and cases cited
therein.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claim 33
Claim 33 depends from independent claim 30 which, as discussed
above, recites a “first conical exterior surface” that “diverges” in “the
downstream direction.” (Claims App.) Claim 33 recites “a second conical
exterior surface” that “converges” in “the downstream direction.” (Id.) In
other words, claim 33 requires a “first” diverging conical exterior surface
and a “second” converging conical exterior surface. The Examiner finds
that Haruch discloses both of these conical exterior surfaces. (See
Annotated Nozzle 46.)
The Appellant argues, in essence, that Haruch does not disclose a
“first” diverging conical exterior surface, so it cannot disclose a “second”
conical exterior surface. (Appeal Br. 26.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because, as discussed above, the Examiner shows sufficiently that
Haruch discloses the “first” diverging conical exterior surface required by
claim 30. (See Annotated Nozzle 46.) And the Appellant acknowledges that
Haruch discloses a converging conical exterior surface as required by claim
33. (See Appeal Br. 26.)
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

13
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claims 34 and 35
Claims 34 and 35 depend directly or ultimately from independent
claim 30, and they recite additional exterior surfaces arranged in a certain
manner relative to the “first conical exterior surface” set forth in claim 30.
(Claims App.) The Examiner identifies corresponding exterior surfaces in
nozzle 46 arranged in the claimed manner relative to the upstream chamfer
of flange 62 (i.e., the “first conical exterior surface”). (See Annotated
Nozzle 46.)
The Appellant advances arguments premised upon Haruch not having
a “first conical exterior surface” whereby the additionally-recited exterior
surfaces cannot be arranged relative thereto. (See Reply Br. 17–18.) We are
not persuaded by these arguments because, as discussed above, the
Examiner shows sufficiently that the upstream chamfer of flange 62 can
constitute the claimed “first conical exterior surface.” (See Annotated
Nozzle 46.) The Appellant does not address, adequately, why the additional
exterior surfaces recited in claims 34 and 35 are not arranged in the claimed
manner relative to this upstream chamfer of flange 62.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35 under
35 U.S.C. §102(e).
Dependent Claim 36
Claim 36, which depends ultimately from independent claim 30, sets
forth that the exterior surface “consists essentially of” five recited exterior
surfaces. The Examiner construes “consisting essentially of” as equivalent
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

14
to “comprising” (see Answer 22) and finds that nozzle 46 comprises the five
recited exterior surfaces (see Annotated Nozzle 46).
The Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “comprising” approach is
improper and that “Haruch certainly does not disclose that the exterior
surface of the orifice member 46 consists essentially of only these five
recited exterior surfaces.” (Reply Br. 19–20.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 31, the Examiner’s “comprising” approach is appropriate. (See MPEP
§ 2111.03 and cases cited therein.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claims 32, 38, and 52
Claims 32, 38, and 52 depend from independent claim 30. (Claims
App.) The Appellant does not argue these claims separately or further for
this rejection (see Appeal Br. 20), so they fall with independent claim 30.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32, 38, and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Independent Claim 39
Independent claim 39, like independent claim 30, requires the liquid
passage to extend “from a liquid inlet at a first axial end of the threadless
nozzle” and to comprise a “first conical passage” that is “adjacent the liquid
inlet.” (Claims App.) The Appellant argues that nozzle 46 does not have a
conical passage that is “adjacent” a liquid inlet “at an axial end.” (See
Appeal Br. 21–22.) For the same reasons discussed above for independent
claim 30, we are not persuaded by this argument.
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

15
Independent claim 39 also recites that “the liquid passage converges
along at least half of an entire length of the threadless nozzle between the
liquid inlet and the liquid outlet.” (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
portions of the liquid passage (i.e., the first conical passage, the second
conical passage, the cylindrical passage) together converge towards the
liquid outlet of nozzle 46. (See Annotated Nozzle 46; Answer 10.)
The Appellant argues that the first conical passage and the second
conical passage “even taken together, only appear to extend approximately
20-25% of the entire length of the orifice member 46.” (Appeal Br. 22.) We
are not persuaded by this argument because it does not take into
consideration the contribution of cylindrical passage 61 to the “length” of
the converging liquid passage. (See Annotated Nozzle 46.) Additionally,
the Examiner provides a dictionary definition for the term “converge” and
we agree with the Examiner that these three passages together converge
towards the liquid outlet in nozzle 46 according to this definition. (See
Answer 10.)
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claim 45
Claim 45, which depends ultimately from independent claim 39,
recites “a cylindrical passage inside the threadless nozzle adjacent the liquid
outlet.” (Claims App.) The Examiner finds that nozzle 46 includes a
cylindrical passage 61 adjacent the liquid outlet. (See Annotated Nozzle 46.)
The Examiner explains that the “extreme downstream” diverging tip in
nozzle 46 can be considered part of the liquid outlet and cylindrical passage
61 is adjacent thereto. (See Answer 22.)
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

16
The Appellant argues that cylindrical passage 61 and the liquid outlet
are separated by a diverging tip, so passage 61 is not “adjacent” the liquid
outlet. (Reply Br. 20–21.) We are not persuaded by this argument because
the Appellant does not address, adequately, why this diverging tip cannot be
considered part of the liquid outlet and/or why it is not adjacent to
cylindrical passage 61.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claim 46
Claim 46, which depends from independent claim 39, recites a
“compression fitting exterior surface” that “is a conical exterior surface that
diverges at the angle in the downstream direction.” (Claims App.) The
Examiner equates this “compression fitting exterior surface” to the “second
conical exterior surface” discussed above in connection with claim 33. (See
Answer 10.)
The Appellant advances the same arguments discussed above in
connection with claim 33. (See Appeal Br. 32–33.) For the same reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 33, we are not persuaded by these
arguments.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Dependent Claims 40, 43, 44, and 53
Claims 40, 43, 44, and 53 depend ultimately from independent claim
39. (Claims App.) The Appellant does not argue these claims further or
separately (see Appeal Br. 22), so they fall with independent claim 39.
Appeal 2013-004099
Application 11/077,273

17
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40, 43, 44, and 53
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37 and 47–51 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30–40 and 43–53
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 30–36, 38–40, 43–46,
52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
cda