text:
No. 98-871
In the Supreme Court of the United States
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
Assistant Attorney General
Deputy Solicitor General
Assistant to the Solicitor
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217
1. Whether, under this Court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), prosecution history estoppel bars the application of the doctrine of equivalents to elements of patent claims that are added by amendment for reasons of patentability.
2. Whether, if prosecution history estoppel does not absolutely bar application of the doctrine of equivalents to such elements of amended patent claims, the court of appeals erroneously concluded that the doctrine of equivalents supported a finding of infringement in this case.
In the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 98-871
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case.
The order of this Court granting a previous petition, vacating the judgment, and remanding for further proceedings in light of Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, is reported at 520 U.S. 1183. See Pet. App. 210a. The opinion of the court of appeals on remand (Pet. App. 1a-15a) is reported at 140 F.3d 1470. The order of the court of appeals denying a petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc (Pet. App. 211a-214a) is reported at 148 F.3d 1384. The court of appeals has issued other opinions in this case, including a 1983 opinion (Pet. App. 100a-135a) reported at 717 F.2d 1351, and a 1996 opinion (Pet. App. 169a-209a), reported at 86 F.3d 1566. A relevant opinion of the trial division of the Court of Claims (Pet. App. 16a-99a) is reported at 215 U.S.P.Q. 787, and a relevant opinion of the Court of Federal Claims (Pet. App. 136a-168a) is reported at 31 Fed. Cl. 481.
The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on April 7, 1998. A petition for rehearing was denied on July 28, 1998. Pet. App. 211a-214a. On October 16, 1998, the Chief Justice extended the time within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari to and including November 25, 1998. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
Respondent Hughes Aircraft Company sued the United States for infringement of United States Patent No. 3,758,051 (the Williams patent), which describes a technology for controlling the attitude of spin-stabilized satellites. The trial division of the Court of Claims rejected respondent's claim that certain accused satellites utilized by the United States infringed the Williams patent under a patent law principle known as the doctrine of equivalents. Pet. App. 16a-99a. The court of appeals reversed that decision. Id. at 100a-135a, 169a-209a. This Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). See Pet. App. 210a. On remand, the court of appeals reinstated its previous judgment. Id. at 1a-15a.
1. The United States and other entities employ satellites that are designed to orbit over a given spot on the earth's surface with their antennae pointing toward the earth. The Williams patent describes technology for controlling the orientation of a spin-stabilized satellite to ensure that the satellite maintains the proper attitude in such an orbit. Pet. App. 2a, 71a-74a, 101a-102a. The Williams patent specifically teaches transmission of the satellite's instantaneous spin angle in "real time" to a ground crew, which compares the actual and desired orientations by reference to a fixed external coordinate system and transmits control signals to the satellite. The ground crew adjusts the satellite's orientation by computing when to activate an orientation control jet and sending an activation signal that is synchronized to coincide with the spin cycle of the satellite. When the synchronized signals are received by the satellite, the jet fires and tilts-or "precesses" -the satellite into the desired position.
Claim 1, which is representative of the claims at issue, requires apparatus comprising (a) a body adapted to spin about an axis; (b) a fluid supply; (c) a valve connected to the supply; (d) a means of expelling the fluid, and the following disputed paragraphs of the claim:
(e) means disposed on said body for providing an indication to a location external to said body of the instantaneous spin angle position of said body about said axis and the orientation of said axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system;
(f) and means disposed on said body for receiving from said location control signals synchronized with said indication;
(g) said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive to said control signals for applying fluid to said fluid expulsion means in synchronism therewith for precessing said body to orient said axis in a predetermined desired relationship with said fixed external coordinate system.
Pet. App. 28a-29a, 104a-105a.
Paragraphs e, f, and g were added during prosecution of the claim in the Patent Office in order to distinguish prior art. A patent issued to McLean had disclosed a spin-stabilized, target-seeking space vehicle with a jet motor on its periphery that automatically precessed the vehicle to keep its spin axis pointing toward its target. The device that McLean described was self-guiding and did not rely on reference to a fixed external coordinate system or on communication with ground control. Pet. App. 39a-61a, 82a-85a, 105a-106a.
The United States has since developed technology for satellites that employs store and execute (S/E) attitude control systems. Those systems are similar in some respects to the device claimed by Williams. The S/E systems, however, do not send information to ground control from which the instantaneous spin angle and spin rate of the satellite can be determined for attitude control. Rather, the S/E systems retain the instantaneous spin angle information in the satellite's on-board computer to pulse the precession jet and maintain the satellite's position. Pet. App. 70a-71a. Control signals received from the ground are stored in the computer for later execution. Upon receipt of the execute command, the S/E system computer calculates the exact instant at which a precession jet should be fired. The control systems of the S/E spacecraft eliminate the need to account for the time delays that result from relaying orientation information between the satellite and the ground crew and permit the ground crew to verify that the satellite has received the proper command signals. That difference enables the S/E spacecraft to operate at highly elliptical orbits, where the distance between the satellite and the earth changes rapidly so that the real-time system envisioned by Williams might not be feasible. See Pet. App. 200a n.1 (Nies, J., dissenting).
2. Respondent sued the United States in 1973, alleging that the United States' S/E satellites infringed the Williams patent. Respondent conceded that the accused devices do not infringe the literal terms of its patent, but instead based its claim on the doctrine of equivalents. Pet. App. 77a, 80a, 118a; see also id. at 75a-76a (finding no literal infringement). Following a trial in 1976 and 1977, the court found that the S/E satellites do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at 16a-99a (Hughes VI).1 The trial court reasoned that, "[i]n order to find equivalence and thus infringement, the court must find that the accused structure performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way and for substantially the same purpose as set forth in the claims." Id. at 80a.
The trial court held that "the claims of the Williams patent each call for at least two elements that cannot be found in any of the [S/E] systems" and that "the doctrine of equivalents does not operate to expand the scope of the claims to cover these systems." Pet. App. 70a, 71a. "Claim 1 of Williams requires (1) means for providing an indication of the [instantaneous spin angle] to an external location, and (2) means for pulsing the precession jet within a fixed time period after the receipt of the control signal. Neither of these two claimed elements can be shown in the structure of the accused [S/E spacecraft]." Id. at 75a; see also id. at 84a-85a. The court found that "even though the ground control itself is not an element of the [Williams patent] claim, the structure called for on the spinning body limits the claim to an attitude control system wherein a ground controller is needed to determine the [instantaneous spin angle] and use it to pulse the precession jet during the desired portion of the spin cycle." Id. at 74a. Moreover, in the S/E system, "there is no fixed time interval between the receipt of the execute signal and the firing of the precession jet." Id. at 79a.
The two distinguishing elements, the trial court found, "were added [during prosecution of the claim in the Patent Office] in combination with a number of other elements to overcome the prior art cited," including the McLean spacecraft, thereby estopping respondent "from claiming that these elements are unnecessary." Pet. App. 84a. "In view of the file wrapper estoppel in this case, the doctrine of equivalents affords protection only against alleged infringers who use obvious and exact equivalents of the elements of the claimed invention." Id. at 85a. The trial court stated that the government's accused devices do not infringe because they contain no such "equivalent of [respondent's] means for providing an indication of the [instantaneous spin angle] to an external location." Ibid.2
3. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the validity of the patent, but concluding that the S/E spacecraft infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Pet. App. 100a-135a (Hughes VII). The court of appeals did not conclude that any of the trial court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. Nonetheless, the court stated that the trial judge "did not apply the 'substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to obtain the same result' guidance set forth in Graver [Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950)]." Id. at 124a. The panel majority ruled the trial court should have determined equivalency by comparing "the claimed invention as a whole" with the "entirety of the accused S/E spacecraft." Id. at 125a. Comparing the claims "in their entirety" with "the entirety of the accused S/E spacecraft," the court found "striking overall similarities." Ibid. The court acknowledged that "[t]he S/E spacecraft uses sun pulses retained on-board as reference points to fire the jet," whereas "Williams uses sun pulses sent to ground as reference points to fire the jet." Id. at 129a. The court concluded, however, that "the government merely employed a modern day computer to do indirectly what Williams taught it to do directly." Id. at 126a. It ruled that the claimed and accused devices were sufficiently similar under the doctrine of equivalents to find that the United States had infringed the Williams patent. Id. at 130a.
Judge Davis dissented from the majority's finding of infringement by equivalents. Pet. App. 131a-135a (Davis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). He observed that "[t]he accused S/E spacecraft do not contain those elements which were expressly included to overcome prior art." Id. at 131a. Judge Davis's analysis focused on the specific limitations in the claims of the Williams patent. He determined that the S/E spacecraft were not equivalent because they "perform[ed] a different function in a different way" from that described in the Williams patent claims. Id. at 133a; see also id. at 135a. In Judge Davis's view, "[t]o find, as the majority does, in th[e] self-contained on-board computer an equivalent of the specific requirement for providing an indication of [the instantaneous spin angle] to the ground (so that the ground can take account of [it]) is simply to obliterate and disregard this element of the claims." Id. at 132a. The Williams claims also require the ground controller "to use the [instantaneous spin angle] to pulse the precession jet during the desired portion of the spin cycle," and they "require means for pulsing the precession jet within a fixed time period after the receipt of the control signal." Id. at 133a. Those attributes, too, are absent from the accused structures. Ibid. Judge Davis concluded that "the accused devices here are definitely outside the equivalence principle of Graver Tank." Ibid.
4. On remand, the trial court conducted additional trial proceedings. It first addressed outstanding liability issues. Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 197 (1993) (Hughes X). It then awarded in excess of $112 million in royalties and delay compensation, more than $100 million of which is attribut- able to the S/E spacecraft. 31 Fed. Cl. 464 (1994) (Hughes XI); 31 Fed. Cl. 481 (1994) (Pet. App. 136a-168a)(Hughes XII).
5. On appeal, the United States sought reversal of the court's earlier holding of infringement by equivalents. Pet. App. 169a-209a (Hughes XIII). Applying the doctrine of law of the case, a divided panel adhered to the court's earlier holding-even though the court's intervening en banc decision in Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961 (1988), had called the court of appeals' earlier decision into question, see Pet. App. 186a-190a, and even though this Court had granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), which raised issues involving the doctrine of equivalents, see Pet. App. 190a-192a. Judge Nies dissented. In her view, Judge Davis's dissent from the earlier panel decision "made the type of analysis which must be made under current case law." Id. at 207a; see id. at 200a-202a (quoting Hughes VII, 717 F.2d at 1367 (Id. at 132a-133a) (Davis, J., dissenting)).
6. The government petitioned for certiorari and suggested that the Court hold the petition pending the Court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997). In deciding Warner-Jenkinson, the Court recognized the continuing vitality of the doctrine of equivalents, but it also specifically held that the doctrine "must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole." 520 U.S. at 29. The Court also stated that, if a limiting element is added to a patent claim by amendment for "a substantial reason related to patentability[,] * * * prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element." Id. at 33. The Court thereafter granted certiorari in the present case, summarily vacated the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Warner-Jenkinson. Pet. App. 210a.
7. On remand, the court of appeals adhered to its previous ruling that the United States' S/E satellites infringed the Williams patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Pet. App. 1a-15a. The court first determined that this Court's order had vacated only Hughes XIII, in which the court of appeals relied on law of the case, and not Hughes VII, in which the court of appeals had originally reversed the trial court's determination of no infringement by equivalents. Id. at 5a-6a. As a consequence of that determination, the court of appeals declined to review the government's argument that the court in Hughes VII had engaged in improper appellate fact-finding. Id. at 6a n.2. The court of appeals stated, instead, that the only issue before it was whether Hughes VII "satisfies the legal analysis required by Warner-Jenkinson." Id. at 6a.
The court of appeals proceeded to address that question and held that "the analysis performed in Hughes VII satisfies the all-elements rule as stated in Warner-Jenkinson." Pet. App. 8a. The court of appeals also ruled that prosecution history estoppel is not a bar to a finding of infringement by equivalents. Id. at 10a-15a. It concluded, instead, that respondent's amendment of its claims "to overcome a prior art rejection" narrowed the range of equivalents, but did not "preclude all equivalents available to" respondent. Id. at 14a. The court held that respondent had not "surrender[ed] subject matter covering a device, such as the accused device, which provides two-way communication with an external location * * * and which uses an external coordinate system." Ibid.
The government petitioned for rehearing and suggested rehearing en banc. The petition and suggestion were denied, with two judges dissenting. Pet. App. 211a-214a. Judge Clevenger, joined by Judge Gajarsa, stated in dissent that the government's argument that the panel's decision conflicts with "the blunt and clear words" of Warner-Jenkinson posed a question "of utmost importance to patent law" to which "[a] swift answer * * * is needed." Id. at 212a, 214a.
This Court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), recognized the continuing vitality of the doctrine of equivalents, which provides that "a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 'equivalence' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention." 520 U.S. at 21. The Court expressed concern, however, that the doctrine of equivalents had "taken on a life of its own, unbounded by the patent claims," and that the doctrine, "when applied broadly, conflicts with the definitional and public-notice functions of the statutory claiming requirement." Id. at 28-29. The Court accordingly limited the doctrine in several important respects that are relevant here.
First, in accordance with the suggestion of Judge Nies, who had dissented in Warner-Jenkinson and in this case, the Court ruled that "the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole." 520 U.S. at 29; see also Pet. App. 207a. Second, the Court stated that the related doctrine of prosecution history estoppel would "bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to" any limiting element that is added to a patent claim by amendment for "a substantial rea- son related to patentability." 520 U.S. at 33. On remand, the court of appeals declined to follow Warner-Jenkinson's guidance. The court of appeals' conscious departure from this Court's directions on those fundamental issues of patent law presents a matter warranting this Court's review.
Because the doctrine of equivalents enables a patent holder to recover for infringement beyond the literal claims of its patent, the doctrine has become virtually "the second prong of every infringement charge." London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As Judge Plager recently stated:
There is perhaps no question more important to the health of patents than the scope and application of the judicially-created doctrine of equivalents. It permeates the entire fabric of patent law, and appears in virtually every case involving patent enforcement.
Litton Systems, Inc. v. Honeywell Inc., 145 F.3d 1472, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(Plager, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc) (Pet. App. 261a).3 Two other judges who had dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc in Litton also dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc in the present case, urging that this Court's review is warranted to clarify the meaning of Warner-Jenkinson. Pet. App. 214a (Clevenger, J., joined by Gajarsa, J.). The present uncertainty over the scope of the doctrine of equivalents "harms both the inventor, who is not sure of the scope of protection that the invention will receive, and competitors of the inventor, who are not sure exactly how close to the claims they can come without being held liable for infringement." Note, To Bar or Not to Bar: Prosecution History Estoppel After Warner-Jenkinson," 111 Harv. L. Rev. 2330, 2342-2343 (1998).
1. The court of appeals' most striking error is its express rejection of the Court's directions respecting the application of prosecution history estoppel. This Court explained that prosecution history estoppel applies only where claims have been amended for a limited set of reasons related to patentability, such as the avoidance of prior art. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 32-33. The Court then addressed the question of "what to do in a case like the one at bar, where the record seems not to reveal the reason" for an amendment. Id. at 33. The Court stated as follows:
Mindful that claims do indeed serve both a definitional and a notice function, we think the better rule is to place the burden on the patent holder to establish the reason for an amendment required during patent prosecution. The court then would decide whether that reason is sufficient to overcome prosecution history estoppel as a bar to application of the doctrine of equivalents to the element added by that amendment. Where no explanation is established, however, the court should presume that the patent applicant had a substantial reason related to patentability for including the limiting element added by the amendment. In those circumstances, prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element.
Ibid. (emphasis added). That passage unambiguously states that, if a patent applicant adds a limiting element to a patent claim for "a substantial reason related to patentability," then "prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element." Ibid. (emphasis added).
This Court directed the court of appeals to reconsider this case in light of Warner-Jenkinson. Pet. App. 210a. On remand, the court of appeals acknowledged that respondent's "amendments to the claim language were made to overcome a prior art rejection." Id. at 14a. It nevertheless held, notwithstanding the language quoted above, that this fact only "serve[s] to narrow the range of equivalents," not to "preclude all equivalents available to [respondent]." Ibid. The court ruled on that basis that respondent's claim amendments "did not surrender subject matter covering" devices such as the government's S/E satellites. Ibid. The court of appeals' ruling conflicts with the "blunt and clear words" of Warner-Jenkinson. Id. at 212a (Clevenger, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc). Compare also Litton Systems, Inc., 140 F.3d at 1455-1458 (refusing to bar application of the doctrine of equivalents in a similarly postured case), petition for rehearing en banc denied, 145 F.3d 1472 (1998); with id. at 1472-1473 (Plager, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1473-1474 (Clevenger, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); id. at 1474-1478 (Gajarsa, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).
This Court's specific directions in Warner-Jenkinson respecting prosecution history estoppel do not appear errant or unintended. The Court preceded those directions with discussion of whether the reason for adding an element by amendment would "necessarily preclude the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element." 520 U.S. at 32; see also id. at 33. The Court also substantially repeated those directions in the concluding paragraphs of the Warner-Jenkinson opinion. Id. at 40-41. The Court's statements reflect the considered view of this Court, and the court of appeals was obligated to follow the Court's guidance when deciding this case on remand. Pet. App. 210a; see Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). The Court clearly stated that, where (as here) a patentee narrows its patent claim by an amendment to distinguish its invention from the prior art and secure its patent, the patentee is estopped from later asserting that the narrowed claim embraces a larger scope than its literal language allows.4 The court of appeals nevertheless rejected that approach in this case, see Pet. App. 11a-13a, and in Litton Systems, Inc., 140 F.3d at 1456-1458, see Pet. App. 226a-230a. The court of appeals' conclusion that this Court did not mean what it unambiguously said presents an important matter that has divided the Federal Circuit and warrants review by this Court.
2. This case presents a particularly appropriate occasion for the Court to consider the court of appeals' rejection of this Court's guidance in Warner-Jenkinson because no infringement should have been found even under the test that the court of appeals elected to follow or, for that matter, under any alternative test embracing this Court's decisions respecting the doctrine of equivalents. The court of appeals' approach is misguided in three basic respects. First, the court of appeals incorrectly applied the "all elements" test. Second, the court did not appreciate the significance of the differences between the invention described in the Williams patent and the government S/E satellites, and it consequently failed to recognize what Williams had surrendered when amending his patent claim in response to prior art. Third, the court erred in refusing to defer to the factual findings of the trial court respecting the devices at issue.
a. In response to the Court's remand instructions, the court of appeals held that the government's S/E satellites infringe respondent's patent even if the doctrine of equivalents is applied, as Warner-Jenkinson mandates, on an element-by-element basis. That holding is incorrect. The government's S/E satellites have no equivalents to the elements described in paragraphs e, f, and g of Claim 1 of the Williams patent. See pp. 3-4, supra. Specifically, the government's S/E satellites do not have: a means "for providing an indication to" an external location "of the instantaneous spin angle position of" the satellites (paragraph e); a means on the satellite for receiving synchronized control signals from the external location (paragraph f); or a means for pulsing the precession jet within a fixed period after receipt of the command signal from the external location (paragraph g).
In Hughes VII, the court of appeals clearly did not apply the doctrine of equivalents on an element-by-element basis, and it even faulted the trial court for doing so. See Pet. App. 121a, 124a, 125a-126a, 130a. The court of appeals nevertheless held on remand that "Hughes VII correctly performed an analysis of the function, way, and result of the individual elements in the accused devices and concluded that these elements equivalently met the claim limitations at issue." Id. at 10a. The court also adhered to its earlier finding that the government's S/E satellites with their on-board computers merely reflected "an insubstantial change in the way the element[s] performed [their] function." Id. at 9a. That analysis conflicts with the test the Court articulated in Warner-Jenkinson, which focuses on "whether [each] substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the claimed element." 520 U.S. at 40.
While the government's on-board computer system and respondent's ground-control system may both achieve the same overall result of orienting satellites, they have quite different elements and those elements perform their different functions in different ways. Judge Nies, whose element-by-element approach to the doctrine of equivalents was adopted in Warner-Jenkinson (see 520 U.S. at 29), explained that point in her dissenting opinion in Hughes XIII. Pet. App. 207a. She and Judge Davis, who dissented from the Federal Circuit's initial holding of infringement by equivalents in Hughes VII (id. at 130a-135a), correctly focused on "the actual structure of the specified components of the invention and of the accused devices" in concluding that the two types of control systems are different. Id. at 207a.
Respondent's real-time system requires a ground controller to determine the satellite's instantaneous spin angle and then send a control signal to the satellite to fire the precession jet at the desired point in its spin cycle within a fixed time period after receipt of the control signal. Pet. App. 74a. By contrast, under the government's S/E system, the ground controller does not determine the satellite's instantaneous spin angle, but rather sends a command to the satellite to fire the precession jet at the appropriate time in the spin cycle. That command is stored in an on-board computer and verified by the ground controller. Id. at 74a-75a. The ground command signal is later executed by the computer, but there is no fixed time interval between the receipt of the ground command signal and the firing of the precession jet, which is a key element of respondent's system. Ibid. Thus, the control system of the S/E spacecraft eliminates the need to account precisely for the delay required for communication signals to travel from the satellite to the earth and then from the earth to the satellite. This difference enables the S/E spacecraft to operate at highly elliptical orbits, where the distance between the satellite and the earth changes rapidly so that the real-time system envisioned by Williams might not be feasible. See id. at 200a n.1 (Nies, J., dissenting).
By holding that those differences between the two control systems are insubstantial, the court of appeals has enlarged the scope of respondent's patent well beyond its express claims, and it has done so in a manner that conflicts with Warner-Jenkinson. This Court made clear in its decision that "[e]ach element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention" and that the doctrine of equivalents must not be "allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate [an individual] element in its entirety." 520 U.S. at 29.
b. According to the court of appeals, Warner-Jenkinson preserved the principle that "the key to prosecution history estoppel is the surrender or disclaimer of subject matter by the patentee, which the patentee is then unable to reclaim through the doctrine of equivalents." Pet. App. 12a (citing Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Prods. Corp., 315 U.S. 126, 136 (1942)). See also Litton Systems Inc., 140 F.3d at 1455, 1457 (stating that Warner-Jenkinson "adhered to the longstanding doctrine that an estoppel only bars recapture of that subject matter actually surrendered during prosecution" and that this Court did not change "the scope of subject matter precluded by an estoppel, but only * * * the circumstances that may trigger an estoppel"). But even when considered in light of this Court's pre-Warner-Jenkison formulations of prosecution history estoppel, the court of appeals' decision is wrong.
This Court stated in Exhibit Supply Co. that "it has long been settled that recourse may not be had to [the doctrine of equivalents] to recapture claims which the patentee has surrendered by amendment." 315 U.S. at 136. As the Court explained, when a patent applicant amends his claim to avoid prior art, the applicant necessarily "proclaim[s] his abandonment of all that is embraced in that difference." Ibid. The Court added that the "disclaimer of that difference * * * must be strictly construed against" the patentee. Id. at 137. Applying that standard here, it is plain that respondent is barred from claiming infringement because the government's S/E satellites are squarely within the area between respondent's broad disallowed claims and its narrower allowed claims.
Respondent initially claimed a "control means coupled to said valve [connecting pressurized gas to a jet] for actuating said valve in pulses synchronized with the spin of said body." Pet. App. 23a. That claim clearly encompassed the government's S/E satellites, which also have a means coupled to a valve that controls the pulses of gas synchronized with the spin of the satellite. The patent examiner, however, rejected that broad claim in light of the McLean patent, which described a self-guided missile. Id. at 28a, 84a. To distinguish the McLean patent, respondent narrowed its claims to a spinning body, such as a satellite, controlled by an external location, such as a ground control station, by means of control signals synchronized with the instantaneous spin angle of the body. Specifically, respondent limited its claim to a "means disposed on said body for providing an indication to a location external to said body of the instantaneous spin angle position of said body" (paragraph e), a "means disposed on said body for receiving from said [external] location control signals synchronized with said indication" (paragraph f), and a means for pulsing the precession jets synchronously with the control signals (paragraph g). See pp. 3-4, supra.
The three elements that respondent claimed as essential factors to distinguish the McLean patent also distinguish the government's S/E spacecraft. That is, the S/E spacecraft do not have a means on the satellite for providing an indication of their instantaneous spin angle position to an external location, such as a ground control station, as paragraph e describes. Nor do the S/E spacecraft have a means on the satellite for receiving external control signals synchronized with the satellite's instantaneous spin angle position (paragraph f) or a means of pulsing the precession jets synchronously with an external control signal (paragraph g).5
This Court identified the controlling principle in Smith v. Magic City Kennel Club, Inc., 282 U.S. 784, 789 (1931): "where an applicant for a patent * * * is compelled by the rejection of his application by the Patent Office to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new element, he cannot after the issue of the patent broaden his claim by dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order to secure his patent." Respondent is "estopped to claim the benefit of [its] rejected claim or such a construction of [its] amended claim as would be equivalent thereto." Id. at 790; accord Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 33 (1966); Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Eng'g Corp., 294 U.S. 42, 48 (1935).
c. The court of appeals compounded its other errors by failing to give proper heed to the scope of this Court's remand order or to the trial court's role in resolving disputed issues of fact. As we have explained, this case returned to the court of appeals on remand from the government's petition for a writ of certiorari, which challenged the court of appeals' decision, in part, on the ground that "the court of appeals erred in failing to defer to the trial court's findings of no infringement by equivalents." 96-1297 Pet. Question 2. The Court's grant of the government's petition for certiorari was not restricted to specific issues. Rather, the Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the case "for further consideration in light of" Warner-Jenkinson. Pet. App. 210a. On remand, the court of appeals nevertheless "decline[d] the government's invitation to revisit the issue of whether the panel in Hughes VII engaged in improper appellate fact-finding." Id. at 6a n.2.
The government's challenge on this matter relates directly to the question of how the doctrine of equivalents should be applied. The trial court in Hughes VI found that the government did not infringe respondent's patent under the doctrine of equivalents based upon its finding that "the claims of [respondent's] patent each call for at least two elements that cannot be found in any of the [government's] systems" and that there were no equivalents for these elements. Pet. App. 70a, 74a. A divided court of appeals panel overturned that finding in Hughes VII, but it did not hold that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. See id. at 207a (Nies, J., dissenting). Instead, that interlocutory decision held that the trial court should have determined equivalence by examining "the claimed invention as a whole." Id. at 125a. In Hughes XIII, another divided panel applied the law-of-the-case doctrine and refused to review the finding of equivalence, notwithstanding an intervening en banc decision that had rejected the "invention as a whole" approach to the doctrine of equivalents. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(en banc), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961, 1009 (1988). This Court in Warner-Jenkinson has now, of course, also rejected the "invention as a whole" test and adopted the element-by-element test.
This Court, as well as the court of appeals, has long held that "[a] finding of equivalence is a determination of fact." Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950); see Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512, 1520-1522 (Fed. Cir. 1995), rev'd on other grounds, 520 U.S. 17 (1977).6 The trial court's finding of lack of equivalence in Hughes VI (or at least the factual components of that finding) therefore should have been reviewed by the court of appeals under the clearly erroneous standard. Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States, 926 F.2d 1169, 1171 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 952 (1991); Insta-Foam Prods., Inc. v. Universal Foam Sys., Inc., 906 F.2d 698, 702 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Under that familiar standard, an appellate court does not decide factual issues de novo, but rather can overturn a finding only when it has "the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). As the Federal Circuit itself has acknowledged, "[f]act-finding by the appellate court is simply not permitted." Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 5 F.3d 1477, 1479 (1993).
The court of appeals' refusal to consider on remand whether it had erred in failing to defer to the trial court's findings fortifies the other formidable reasons calling for this Court's review. The trial court found, as a matter of fact, that the government did not infringe respondent's patent under the doctrine of equivalents, applied on an element-by-element basis. See Pet. App. 80a-85a. The court of appeals rejected that finding on an improper "entire-invention" basis, nowhere concluding that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. See id. at 207a (Nies, J., dissenting). The government's previous petition for a writ of certiorari specifically raised and preserved that issue, and this Court's grant of the government's petition, vacation of the judgment, and remand for further consideration provided the court of appeals with the opportunity to resolve that outstanding issue. The court of appeals erred in a fundamental way in refusing even to consider that issue on remand. The court has subjected the United States to more than $100 million in liability without considering a dispositive issue embraced within this Court's remand order-and, as we have shown, in erroneously deciding the issues that it did consider.
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted.
Solicitor General
Assistant Attorney General
Deputy Solicitor General
Assistant to the Solicitor
1 The trial court had initially held respondent's patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), in view of prior art, Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 205 U.S.P.Q. 381 (Ct. Cl. 1979) (Hughes IV), but the Court of Claims reversed that holding on appeal, 640 F.2d 1193 (1980) (Hughes V).
2 The trial court found that other spacecraft, referred to as the "real time" systems, did infringe Claim 1 of the Williams patent. Pet. App. 85a-97a. The real-time systems, unlike the S/E systems, "had a circuit which permitted the precession jet valve to be directly operated by a signal from ground control." Id. at 91a; see id. at 97a.
3 We have reproduced the panel decision and the opinions on denial of rehearing en banc in Litton in the petition appendix. See Pet. App. 215a-280a.
4 As our brief amicus curiae in Warner-Jenkinson pointed out (at 14 n.2), however, we had previously suggested to this Court that, even if the doctrine of equivalents is unavailable, the patentee should still be protected against merely colorable or trivial deviation from the precise language of the claims. That would not, however, permit a broadening of the substance of the limiting elements, as the court of appeals has done here by applying the doctrine of equivalents.
5 The court of appeals reasoned that respondent's amendments "did not surrender subject matter covering a device, such as the accused device, which provides two-way communication with an external location (although some calculations are made onboard instead of at the external location) and which uses an external coordinate system." Pet. App. 14a. To be sure, both respondent's satellites and the government's S/E spacecraft use two-way communication with the earth and an external coordinate system. Respondent, however, did not specify two-way communication when narrowing its patent claims. Instead, as discussed above, it limited its claims by adding the very specific communication elements described in paragraphs e, f, and g, none of which applies to the S/E spacecraft. Therefore, even if the court of appeals were correct that the doctrine of equivalents available to respondent is narrowed, but not barred, prosecution history estoppel should nevertheless apply under the test that the court enunciated.
6 In Warner-Jenkinson this Court discussed, but ultimately did not decide, the roles of the judge and jury in applying the doctrine of equivalents. 520 U.S. at 37-39.


text:
Vintage Womens DressesDress Code - Portsmouth
More demure charm than Audrey Hepburn , more glitz and glam than Judy Garland riding a mirrorball... Oh the Dress Code Vintage Section. We've been doing this so long, we definitely remember it the first time round! From office formal to downright kitsch glorious fancy dress, we stock the boldest prints and the sleekest LBD's in town. With an ever updating portfolio of the best UK and International clothes over the last century. From the 30's to the 90's, be scene and not herd.
We stock:
Vintage, Womens, Mens, Dress, Skirt, Trousers, Ties, Jackets, Coats, Shoes, Grunge, Check Shirts, Punk, Vivienne Westwood, Rave, Cyberdog, Designer, Couture, Shell Suits, Armani, Betty Barclay, Gucci, Thrasher, Pin up, Rockabilly, Psychobilly, Levi Strauss, Nike, Adidas, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and much more...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Threaded Rod Mount Hardware For Curtain Track System
Track Threaded Rod Mount Curtain Hardware
Most track and rollers for curtains require mounts and hardware in order to be effective. Mounting using a threaded rod is a great way to effectively hang your curtain track and curtain and make sure it is still able to be conveniently opened and closed. The hardware associated with these rods attaches the curtain tracking to the ceiling or structure above using a special mounting bracket in order to create a secure bond. The threaded rod mounting track hardware is an easy way to secure both the track and dividing curtain when a chain, ceiling or wall mount are not possible. This diverse category involves items such as many different types of rod brackets and curved roller tracks in order to fully meet and support your needs.
Whether you need all your mounting hardware at once or you just need a few pieces, we can help with all your threaded rod mounts hardware needs. Featuring a selection of angled mount brackets, end stop brackets, support brackets, roller track brackets, and the tracks themselves, this selection has something to offer everyone, no matter what type of project they are working on. These pieces of hardware are necessary for hanging tarps and curtains in any and all environments. Cutting corners usually leads to disaster, so make sure that your track and curtains are properly hung and secure today by getting the right mounts and brackets for the job.
Roller Track Threaded Rod Mount Support Brackets$9.99 As low as: $8.75
Roller Track 90 Degree Connector Threaded Rod Brackets$29.65 As low as: $23.50
Roller Track "T" Connector Threaded Rod Brackets$34.25 As low as: $27.75
Curved Roller Track 90 Degree Threaded Rod Mount 24" RadiusPrice:$93.99
Roller Track Adjustable End Stop$2.99 As low as: $2.45
Roller Track Wall Mount End Stop Bracket$8.55 As low as: $6.75


text:
A test drive tells you more than a thousand pictures. Visit our Opel showroom today:
Opel Singapore
7 Ubi Close
Singapore 408604
Sales and Showroom:
Daily: 9am to 7pm
Tel: 6922-3288
Why shouldn't your car be as well connected as your smartphone? The Opel Meriva makes it possible, and it does it simply and enjoyably. Great sound, clear graphics and intuitive operation all add up to some very special packages.
Check with your friendly Opel Singapore sales staff to find out about the options available for the Singapore market.
The Opel Meriva has increased convenience and connectivity due to the seamless smartphone integration with IntelliLink technology. It brings many of their functions into the car via the infotainment system, clearly displaying the data and functions on the high definition seven-inch color screen display. The ease of use and clarity is a major advantage with the system.
Or bored. The built-in GPS voice guided navigation will lead you anywhere you want to go. With smartphone integration for hands-free phone, and the latest music, radio and video technologies at your fingertips, the New Meriva gets you to your destination while making the journey there an enjoyable one.
You want your own music or sounds? No problem. The aux-in and USB is mounted right where you need it in the centre console. Instant connection of any mobile device with a headphone jackplug or USB to the Infotainment system is as simple as that!
Even at the entry level, all of the infotainment systems of the Opel Meriva deliver great sound: from the basic system with CD player, RDS/EON and 3x6 presets to the CD 400 Plus with double tuner, dynamic sound processor and graphic equalizer. Extras include DAB for digital radio reception, steering wheel controls, and mobile phone portals with voice control via Bluetooth® on most systems.
With the Navi 650 you get a great mix of sound and navigation: high-quality 7 inch color screen with continuous map zooming, navigation data from internal memory and 7 premium speakers, so you stay informed and on track.
Mounting your handy made simple. The FlexDock® holds your smartphone in easy sight, for driver or front passenger. Better still it eases connection into the Infotainment system and automatically charges the device – with no unsightly wiring to disturb the Opel Meriva great looks.
Opel will use reasonable efforts to ensure that the contents of this Site are accurate and up to date but does not accept any liability for any claims or losses arising from a reliance upon the contents of the Site. Some of the information on this Site may not be correct due to product changes which may have occurred since it was launched. Some of the equipment described or shown may only be available in certain countries or may be available only at extra cost. Opel reserves the right to change product specifications at any time. For the actual product specifications in your country, please consult your Opel dealer.


text:
Nuclear Sites
Browse Sites
Nuclear Sites
Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center/Research Reactors
According to the IAEA, Iran has a light water sub-critical reactor (LWSCR) that uses uranium metal fuel. The reactor operates only a few days per year. The Miniaturized Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) is a research reactor of Chinese origin. The MNSR has been in operation since the mid-1990s and has a lifetime supply of one kilogram of 90.2 percent enriched fuel. The Heavy Water Zero Power Reactor, supplied by China, went critical in 1995. There is also a decommissioned graphite sub-critical reactor (GSCR) which used uranium metal fuel.
For other Esfahan-area facilities, see here
For more information on the Esfahan Nuclear Technology Cernter check: Related Reports


text:
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'dodge'.
Found 13 results
rulebook Rulebook - Unclear rules/mechanics
Replect posted a topic in Dark Souls - The Board Game Rules QuestionsHello, in this thread we are looking for official clarifications for any rule (parts of the) community don't feel comfortable that they understood them! Anything that has been officially clarified, I'll add here: Cheers Replect PS.: If you have more basic questions, you probably find the answer in that "Quick Guide":
Movement, Repositioning and Effects
Timbo2020 posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsGood afternoon, time for newby question number 2. Pushes and dodges are not advances and are not effected by terrain however are models effected if pushed in to or dodge out of traps, AoE and terrain. Big problem recently playing against the hunters guild. Jaecar has the pitfall trap. Can he place this in base contact to another model or so close to a model that any movement causes it effect. It was basically used to pin my player in place as it was within an inch so I could not move (advance) without activating it. Can you dodge or push your way out of it or would this still cause the effect to trigger. I read that dodged and pushes are not effect but terain and wonder is the the same for traps, pitfalls and other AoE? If so anyone know how to counter having a pitfall place in base contact so you can not move? Cheers
Resolving Dodge Roll - Quick Question
Katsumi posted a topic in Dark Souls - The Board Game Rules QuestionsI understand that you always have to pay 1 stamina for attempting a dodge roll, before you roll the dice. But I was wondering if you: 1. pay 1 stamina 2. move 1 node 3. roll dice and take/prevent dmg OR 1. pay 1 stamina 2. roll dice 3. take dmg and don't move 1 node / prevent dmg and move 1 node THANKS <3
supertzar posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsIf Sakana gets charged and declares a free counter but is then knocked down or pushed out of melee, is the trait then used for the rest of the turn or can he do a free counter to the second model trying to attack him? Poised says the model can make a counter attack without spending mp but the model in this case is unable to actually make the attack. I understand that mp is spent when declaring the counter but the trait seems to be triggering at the step when the model is making the attack, ie. is able to roll dice.
Dodging while base to base with two models
WarpWookie posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsTried my best to find this but couldnt find anything. So here the situation, you have Midas with a enemy model base to base behind him. He is charged by another enemy model, base to base in front so that all three models are in a line base to base. If midas chooses to activate unpredictable movement, can he actually dodge?
Honour and counter attack
The Old Buzzard posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsHonour is in base to base with Ox. Neither have moved. Ox hits Honour and she uses her MP free counter attack. Doing that she dodges out of his melee zone. Ox charges in and hits her again. Can she counter attack again? (I was already winning, I chose not to. I thought dodging out again would convince him he did not want to play this game again. I am short of regular opponents.) Bill
Fillet: ALL the Timing and Interaction Questions...
AdamJHilton posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsOkay, so I have multiple questions on timing and interaction concerning Fillet. Hopefully, this thread won't dissolve into madness. If it does, I'll lock it and start individual threads. So here goes: Blood Dance and Pain Circle/Blood Rain Pain Circle and Blood Rain both apply the bleed condition while doing damage. Does this trigger Blood Dance? I assume yes as Blood Dance happens 'after' causing damage; and the model would be bleeding. Blood Dance and Playbook Dodges Does the dodge from Blood Dance and any doge results from playbook happen at the same time? As in are they added together into a single dodge? I'm not sure if this really matters for the timing of anything else: counter attacks, traps, etc. Smell Blood and Blood Rain If Fillet gets a playbook wrap and triggers Blood Rain and playbook damage in the same attack, does the [+1] damage to playbook damage results from Smell Blood trigger? I assume no as the playbook results are applied simultaneously. Exsanguinate and Momentum If Exsanguinate knocks a model out, is momentum generated? The damage is both conditional and from a legendary play, so I'm not sure which takes precedence. Thanks!
Playbook Dodges, Clarification vs S2 Rulebook
RedMaje posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsIn the S2 Rulebook under the Resouces tab under Playbook (pg 29) it says: Dodge – The active model may make [1"] of Dodge movement for each arrow shown on the Playbook result. Combine all Dodge results from an Attack into a single Dodge movement. However under the Rules Clarifications in the forum it says: Pushes/Dodge Dodges don't have to be in a single straight line, while pushes do. In the rulebook it sounds like if you choose a Dodge from the Playbook w/ 2 arrows then you get up to 2" (because you don't have to use the entire dodge or any if you choose), but in only one direction since it is to be combined into a single Dodge movement. Are the clarifications pre or post rulebook? Or is this just an error inside of the rulebook itself?
Tidal surge dodge off the pitch?
Pending Forum Suspension posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsI know a model can't voluntarily leave the pitch but does this apply to a dodge forced upon then like shark's Tidal surge? I couldn't find anything in the rulebook or clarification section. Thanks! I'm 100% sure this has been asked but I can't get it to pull up so hopefully I've tagged it in such a way it'll be easier for the next guy.
Dodge Directly Towards and Intervening Models
aarmy posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsTried doing a search but didn't come up with an answer, so sorry if this was resolved. I had a situation where my opponent had his Brick partially blocked LOS from my Farhad with his Harmony. He pushed Farhad back 1", then was going to follow up, but his trait said directly towards Farhad, and by doing so his base would partially pass over Harmony's. I know that if his base would end up on Harmony's it won't work, but is he allowed to pass over her base?
Can a model dodge with Pass 'n' Move and drop the ball?
Johan posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsIf Siren has the ball and successfully passes it to Kraken, can I then have Kraken dodge 4" with the gained momuntum AND drop the ball to a player next to him at the same time? The rule for dropping the ball reads "an active model in possession ... may give up possession at any point during its activation" and in the definitions section active model is defined as: "Active model refers to the model currently being activated. During a model's activation; if any other model performs an action it temporarily becomes the active model for the duration of that action." So in the example above, when Kraken makes the dodge does he become the active model and is therefore referred to as the "model currently being activated" which then allows him to drop the ball?
Multiple effects in playbook choices
Bornabairn posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsHi All, Quick question I cant find the answer to. I know you cannot choose Tackle from playbook results if player doesn't have the ball, But say Salvo from the engineers guild for example... Could you choose the Tackle/<< (playbook 4) result instead of the << result (playbook 2) to generate momentum? Or are you stuck with the non momentous << because the player doesnt have the ball. I could see a ruling going either way to be honest, just wondering if it's allready been covered. Cheers Bornabairn
Are Dodges in a straight line?
Martin G posted a topic in Guild Ball Rules ClarificationsCan Were'd They Go? user move freely during the 4" Dodge or is he restricted to straight line? Rulebook is missing a sentence that forces Dodge user to move in a straight line. Push has relevant sentence so was it omitted in a Dodge description by accident or on purpose?


text:
Vital Thoughts Consulting's approach to application development starts with a comprehensive Project Plan with several phases for major project deliverables. Each phase will have several high-level work activities, which can be broken down into the specific tasks. Vital Thoughts Consulting uses Rapid Application Development and Iterative techniques to allow some work from one phase to overlap in duration with ongoing work in another phase. The typical high-level project activities and control processes are shown below. The colored columns represent the application development phases for the project while the gray frame represents the project controls used to manage the overall process. This framework is designed to ensure that both the Customer and Vital Thoughts Consulting understand what is required to be successful and to ascertain the current status of the project.
Vital Thoughts Consulting experts offer full life-cycle solutions from business process re-engineering, application requirements, design, implememtation, testing and rollout. We work together with your staff to see that the appropriate skills are transferred, to enable you to extend the solutions for additional business needs.
Software application technologies include 3-tier architectures, transactional component architectures, legacy application/data integration, proof-of-concept/technology prototypes and requirement definition prototypes. We are skilled in the latest technologies and can tailor a solution that meets your business and support needs.
Contact us for additional needs, such as application rewrites, which bring your legacy applications into the inter-networked world.
If you are implementing a third-party package and need help integrating it with your existing systems, we can provide expertise in planning, custom integration solutions, Internet/Intranet enabling, data migration, legacy access, and testing.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.


text:
Christmas Services
First Baptist Church in Maryville 7110 State Route 162, Maryville, Illinois
WHAT: Christmas Services
WHERE: First Baptist Maryville | 7110 State Route 162, Maryville, IL 62062
WHEN: Saturday, December 6 at 5:30 p.m. & Sunday, December 7 at 8:15, 9:30 & 10:55 a.m.
WHO: Everyone Can Attend
Temperatures are falling. Scarves, hats & gloves are becoming more and more common for attire. What does that mean? The Christmas season has officially begun.
On Saturday, 12/6 at 5:30 p.m. & Sunday, 12/7 at 8:15, 9:30 & 10:55 a.m., FIrst Baptist Maryville is kicking the Christmas season off with a weekend full of Christmas joy with a creative twist. Sing along to Christmas carols, enjoy a skit or two, and start Christmas early this year with this weekend of celebration. It'll be the same service all four times--pick one service to attend and bring a friend or two to spread the Christmas cheer. Merry Christmas!
For more info, contact the church office (618.667.8221) or visit fbmaryville.org.


text:
I hope you are having a great day. I know I am, because I love to promote authors whose books I've loved before. Why yes, I could live for this, so now I want the whole wide world to check out Kim Askew & Amy Helmes' next book in their Twisted Lit Series:
I'm thrilled to present you the summary of this new spin on Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet.
Two Italian restaurants, both alike in dignity, in Chicago's Little Italy where we lay our scene...
After her family's struggling eatery, Cap's, falls prey to another of the Monte clan's vicious and destructive pranks, sixteen-year-old Gigi Caputo finds herself courting danger during a clandestine encounter with Roman Monte, the very boy whose relatives have brought her family such grief. When the daughter and son of these two warring factions fall for each other, their quest to mend this bitter family feud turns out to be a recipe for disaster. Their story is irrevocably linked to the summer of 1933, when two twelve-year-olds, Benny and Nick, hop the turnstile at the Chicago World's Fair. While enjoying some of the fair's legendary amusements, Nick has a "love at first sight" encounter with Stella, a young girl who unintentionally causes a lasting rift between the two boyhood pals. Deftly winding its way through past and present day, this modern take on Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet has much to do with hate — but more with love.
And now the cover...
I love that it has to do with the story but it also matches the rest of the series.
Now because Kim & Amy are such lovely people, they decided to giveaway one of the books on their series to ONE OF YOU.
Enter away :)


text:
Recommended books
Telling the story of the world's most incredible buildings, from the ancient world to the present da...
Telling the story of the world's most incredible buildings, from the ancient world to the present da...
Follow the Chima Heroes on their quest across the LEGO® Legends of Chima™ world
LEGO® Legends of Chima™: Heroes' Quest is a 'Starting to Read Alone' reader, perfect for children beginning to read alone as they develop skills to read confidently, accurately, fluently and with good understanding. DK Reads proves that good reads build great readers.
Follow along with Laval the lion, and the other Chima heroes, on their quest across the magical land of Chima. This action-packed story introduces exciting new characters and storylines from 2014 LEGO Chima sets and minifigures and includes amazing images of LEGO Chima gadgets and vehicles. Interactive aspects such as diaries, recipes, and games provide an element of fun while supporting the story and curriculum.
LEGO® Legends of Chima™: Heroes' Quest is part of the DK Reads series, a three-level reading scheme that helps children become confident readers, featuring engaging and illustrated topics. DK Reads is created in consultation with literacy experts and adheres to leveled reading scheme guidelines so the grammar, vocabulary, and content are spot on for each stage.


text:
Agile Street Sweeper
B.A. Thesis 02 /2013
The X-CAV street sweeper eliminates the need for multiple machines of different size to do the same job. To adapt to any size street, the undercarriage parallel to the cleaning unit can be extended from 140cm to 300cm.
The combination of horizontally and vertically rotating brushes ensures an optimal cleaning coverage at the curbstone in addition to under the sweeper itself. Another advancement is an extendable vacuum arm for detailed cleaning under park benches, between cars and other tight spaces.
Usage Process
Scale Model 1:10
Reseach and Development


text:
Wednesday, 16 December 2009 07:46 AM
Movie producer Tyler Perry says his mother, Willie Maxine Perry, has died.
His mother was 64. Tyler Perry announced the news of the Tuesday death on his Web site, where he thanked fans for their prayers. He did not say where his mother died or anything about the cause.
Perry's publicist did not immediately respond to a phone call.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted a 2006 interview with Perry in which he said his mother was the basis for his most popular character, Madea.
The newspaper said Maxine Perry was a preschool teacher who worked at the New Orleans Jewish Community Center for most of her life.
On the Net:
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
ATLANTA (AP) — Movie producer Tyler Perry says his mother, Willie Maxine Perry, has died.
© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Newsmax Comment Policy
Keep discussions on topic, avoid personal attacks and threats of any kind. Links will not be permitted.
Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.


text:
We Love Our Pets – License Plates
Each year nearly 150,000 cats and dogs end up in shelters across Washington State. With the purchase of a "We Love Our Pets" Washington State license plate, you will help spay and neuter more pets and save lives. Spaying or neutering is the most humane and effective method for reducing the number of homeless pets, and provides dogs and cats with significant health and behavioral benefits. Reducing pet homelessness means less suffering for stray and abandoned animals, as well as fewer tax dollars spent on caring for animals in need.
The license plate features lovable characters designed by artist and author Brian Bassett, (Adam@Home and "Red and Rover"), and are available for purchase at all Washington State vehicle licensing offices. Learn more about how organizations can apply for the license plate fund grants, including a list of groups who have been awarded since granting began in 2007. To help spread the word about the plate, please download, print and distribute the We Love Our Pets flyers.
What does it cost?
The original cost to purchase a plate is $40 plus applicable licensing fees. When the vehicle registration comes due, you will need to pay an additional $30 to keep the plate on your vehicle even if you have not had the plate for a full year. Plates are available for registered passenger vehicles, light duty pickups, trailers, motorcycles and campers in Washington State. For questions or to locate vehicle licensing offices, visit the Washington State Department of Vehicle Licensing. Thank you for your support!


text:
The fun and games started when Bobby Cheng blundered against Junta Ikeda losing his last round game, leaving the way open for the others to overtake him. The net game at the top to finish was Kanan Izzat's win over Max Illingworth guaranteeing at least a share of first in the tournament depending on the final game between Justin Tan and Karl Zelesco. The tension mounted as games started finishing and the crowd around the top game increased. By the time I was finished, there were hardly any games left in either tournament, but the Tan-Zelesco game was still in full battle. In fact, the main game proved the last to finish. In the end, Justin Tan completed his comeback from a bad start to spoil Karl Zelesco's championship dream, and hand it to Bobby Cheng!
Full results of the Championship can be seen on the chess results server. Some notable points. Kanan Izzat was the tournament winner, while Bobby Cheng added the title of Australian Champion to the blitz title he won a few days earlier. Two games were forfeited. Sadly, Luke Li turned up late for the last round due to a mechanical car issue, but at least he had already gained an IM norm. More bizarrely was Mirko Rujevic not turning up to play his 10th round game on Monday. Mirko, who is turning 70, this year had a senior moment when he thought the tournament had finished on Sunday, and hadn't realised that the event continued.
The Reserves tournament saw 3 players who were near the top for the whole event take out the top 3 places. First was Patrick Gong with an amazing 9.5/11. This was half a point clear of Michael Kethro on 9 while Kris Chan was third a further half point back on 8.5. The Reserves was hard fought, and this is shown by the fact that another 27 players finished within 1.5 of third place. Of all these, perhaps special mention should go to James Watson who scored 7 points with an ACF rating of only 1633, whereas most of the players in the top 30 were over 1800.
Here's the final win of Kanan Izzat, who was definitely worse against Max Illingworth, beofre Max blundered with 35.Qc5.


text:
I neglect the inside and soak up every minute of fresh air I can get. I work in the yard when the little ones are napping, monitor bike riding on the road in front of our house, hand out lots of Bomb Pop Jr.'s to the neighbor kids. I drive a van load of kids (yes, they're all mine) to a different park than the day before after Tess's morning nap, and pack a lunch so we don't have to come back home until it's time for her afternoon one.
I've watched cute little baseball players come into their own, and took three very happy boys to four straight weeks of swimming lessons. And oh yes, there were the children to feed. And bathe. Unless of course Tyler talked me into pool time taking the place of bath time.
Hey, it's summer.
So I find myself catching up again, and I'm not one bit bothered by it. Because summer makes me care a whole lot less about things like this. I'd rather be in the back yard, reading with my six year old, smushed right next to him in the middle of the hammock.
(I get really sweaty sitting that close to someone, but it's worth it when it's your boy.)
So, at the risk of sounding repetitive and a bit uncreative, I'm committing this week to catching you up on our summer. Don't hold your breath for too long...
It looks a lot like last summer.
Minus the newborn, that is.


text:
"He was organized, even keel, and kept the mood light and fun. The photos were beautiful, natural, and classic, and every shot that we could have hoped for and more was there. We are so thankful to have had John and his team a part of our wedding!"
Kelsea West Alexander, Bride
The day of the wedding came and John exceeded my expectations. He coordinated a very large wedding party and family perfectly! I didn't even notice him on the dance floor with us and he got so many great moments! The wedding day and reception all happens so fast, but we have the greatest photos to look at and re-live the entire day."
Maggie Sims, Bride
"I cannot imagine our wedding without John as our photographer. He made the entire process so fun and easy. David and I really enjoyed working with him throughout our engagement. His passion for what he does is so evident and he has great advice due to all of his experience. From our engagement photos, to my bridal portraits, to our wedding pictures, he captured everything perfectly and exceeded my expectations in every way. We are so thankful for John and his talent!"
Caroline Thompson Richards, Bride
"As a first-time mother of the bride, I knew I wanted someone unique and special. John's approach to photography is not only impeccably professional, but he has such an incredible knack for getting to know, REALLY know, his clients: their quirks, their desires, and their personalities."
Martha Miller, Mother of the Bride
"I will forever be thankful for the AMAZING photos that we got from our wedding. Choosing a photographer is (in my opinion) the most important decision you will make for your wedding because the pictures will last a lifetime. John truly takes this to heart! I have seen many of his photos from all different styles of weddings and events and have been blown away by ALL of them! John is always my first recommendation to friends who have recently gotten engaged!"
Hannah Jarrett Obenchain, Bride


text:
- Home
- Cheats »
- Codes »
- Catalogs »
- Guides »
- Games »
- Trackers »
- Missions »
- Fun »
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Club Penguin Frozen Party 2014 Cheats - Snowman Puffle!
The Club Penguin island has just got a lot colder... because the 2014 Frozen Party has arrived! Click on the purple snowflake button to view the party information.
Members and nonmembers can collect the Frozen Ice igloo!
Elsa has also brought magical snowflakes to the island, and we must collect them. Click "Go There" to visit each room and collect the snowflakes.
There will be three snowflakes in each assigned room.
For each room you collect snowflakes from, you get to earn prizes!
Once you collect all the snowflakes, you get to unlock all these cool gifts! Members can also adopt the Snowman Puffle, and transform into Olaf and Marshmallow!
What is your favorite part of this party? I love all the rooms! Make sure to melt and freeze them!
|This post was:
at 5:54 PM
Labels: Frozen Party, Party
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Greetings from Ushuaia: 'fin del mundo' – the end of the world!
The next land mass from here is Antarctica, and we don't fancy going there (not yet at least). After 9,000 kilometres travelled, three countries, ten border crossings and over 103,000 metres ascended through the Andes Mountains on bikes — now seems like as good a time as any to stop.
Where in the blazes do I begin with the summing up of a six month journey? I'm going to start where you should always start when feeling a little overwhelmed— where it is the most marvellous.
Faye and I were putting up our tents for the final time last night when she paused, mid construction, a tent peg in one hand and her ground sheet in the other:
'Anna…' she said.
'Yes mate?' I stopped wrestling with my own pop-up-palace, and looked across at her.
'I think we've done really well, you know. I don't mean the cycling, I mean… well… us.'
I smiled. 'Well?! I think 'well' is an understatement Faye-bomb! It's not normal, living the way we have. It's enough to drive you bananas. And we still very much like bananas.'
There was a moment of silence.
'I think it's been the best thing, you know. Us two.' Faye continued quietly.
'Me too mate, me too.' I replied. We smiled at one another, and then went back to putting up our tents, just as we have done almost every night for the past half a year. Continue reading


text:
Pure Privilege
When you join, you will earn points on product purchases that can be redeemed for free gifts from Aveda!
Earn rewards points with each purchase.
Earn points for special gifts, spa treatments and more with Aveda's Pure Privilege℠ program.
Pay a one-time fee of $10 to join and receive:
- Points on all Aveda products purchased*
- Participate in double reward point offers
- Exclusive offers and special access
- Double points on your first purchase.
- Certificate for double reward points with your welcome kit, to be used on your next Aveda product purchase
- A birthday gift and double reward points on an Aveda product purchase during your birthday month
- Be the first to learn about events, special offers, sampling opportunities and news from Aveda
Not yet a member?
Stop in to The Color Room Salon & Day Spa to sign up today and start earning great rewards.
Reward yourself.
Choose from seven tiers of pampering rewards – including salon and spa services, fine jewelry, a weekend escape and a luxury holiday.


text:
Radeon HD 3690 is for China market only
Bad luck everyone else
By: Cameron Wilmot | Video Cards News | Posted: Jan 25, 2008 2:11 am
Comment | Email to a Friend | Font Size: AA
After posting our story about the Radeon HD 3690 and requesting samples from several companies including Sapphire, we were told that the high-end mid-range graphics card is only for the China market and will not be available in other areas.
If you wanted to buy this product and you're not in China, bad luck.
We figure the reason for this is that the higher end HD 3850 and 3870 models probably aren't being sold in China due to the high asking price - at least in any decent quantities. This part will be the high-end gaming GPU for AMD in China for the time being.
Got an opinion on this news? Post a comment below!


text:
As the year comes to an end, we will be saying goodbye to 2014 with a friend. Enjoy your WOD.
For time:
20 Box Jumps 24/20 (each)
14 Toe 2 Bar (each)
20 Kettlebell Swings 53/35 (each)
14 Jumping Lunges (each)
20 Thrusters 95/65 (each)
14 Burpee Pull-Ups (each)
20 Double Unders (each)
14 Goblet Squats 53/35 (each)
Note: one partner works at a time, while the other partner holds a bar in the high hang 95/65. Each time the barbell is dropped, both partners must do 15 Burpees (not each person). During the thrusters each partner will have a chance to rest. During this time the barbell may not touch the floor still.


text:
While they would easily prove one of the most proficient, memorable and talented European thrash acts to hatch in the 80s, Switzerland's Coroner arrived through humble beginnings. They started out as a more traditional metal outfit until their 1986 demo Death Cult, and they had strong connections to that 'other' legendary Swiss band, Celtic Frost. Tommy 'T Baron' Vetterli and Markus 'Marquis Marky' Edelmann served as roadies for the Tragic Serenades tour. Oliver Amberg (who would later join Frost for their unpopular Cold Lake years) was an early part of the lineup. Most notably, Tom G. Warrior himself performed the vocals on the Death Cult demo, when the style of the band shifted closer to the entity that the once unstoppable Noise records would snap up in a heartbeat.
For the most part, though, that is where the similarities between the two bands end. Coroner could not have been any more different from the demonic, experimental black doom thrashers. They were writing highly technical, neo-classically charged infusions of thrash with the world had not yet encountered. Hell, with the exception of bands like Germany's Mekong Delta (or Deathrow on the Deception Ignored album), we haven't really encountered since. About the one trait that could be comparable would be the vocals of Ron Roye (aka Ron Broyer), which are not dissimilar to Tom Warrior, a dark and throaty concoction that conjures a barbaric, brute juxtaposition with the manic, exhilarating guitar work. Truly, we had bands out there playing with crass intensity that could twist skulls straight off their vertebrae (Slayer, Dark Angel, Tankard just to name a few); but none of these had Tommy T Baron, a shred-born anomaly who would tirelessly execute Baroque and other hyperventilated scales with fluid precision in the core riffs of the compositions (disregarding the actual leads).
Even more impressive is that the rhythm section was not intimidated in the slightest by this raving lunatic. Royce is highly capable himself, traversing the same grounds on the bass where needed; and Edelmann, though rooted in the traditional metal and rock drumming, provided a tight formation over which the pair could spiral off into madness. R.I.P. is a mind warping beast of a debut, potent and graceful in its controlled chaos, imbued with an unwavering morbidity that easily justified their chosen handle. Granted, a lot of the ideas here would be further exploited and perfected through the band's next pair of albums, Punishment for Decadence and No More Color, two of the greatest works I've ever had the privilege to own, but for its day, the debut is quite close to perfect itself, with an airy and wonderful Harris Johns mix. Seriously, this guy had a radar attractor to talent, and Coroner is yet another act he helped unveil to the world through his studio wizardry.
I am not exaggerating when I claim that this Swiss band, at least from 1987 through 1991, represented one of the high water marks of thrash metal, helping set such a standard for this genre that I have been forever spoiled for so many of the pathetic throwbacks and neanderthals who have tried to redefine it to a more primate state since. Coroner do more than just make you never want to pick up an instrument again out of envy: they write damned good songs. They pace their albums extremely well. Here, the beautiful pianos and resonant flutes of the intro are broached with windy samples, as if a trace of sunlight were dawning upon a sepulcher, its still denizens about to awaken, pick up instruments and channel the brilliant composers of years past. Then those very same undead minstrels flog the living fuck out of thee with "Reborn Through Hate", one of the best songs on this album and one of the highlights of the band's career, its snakelike, menacing rhythms colliding into the gymnastics of the bass and drums, and Royce giving his 'official' introduction with barked, almost constipated force.
"When Angels Die" offers a few plush, atmospheric chords before it spins off into a frenzied foreshadowing of the guitar lines that would later manifest on "Mistress of Deception" (No More Color), and then a dour, acoustic intro with war samples and shredding transforms into the song "Nosferatu", which is naught more than beautiful, climactic shredding with some atmospheric glaze and keyboard strikes, but ambitious nonetheless. This is not an album short on highlights. "Suicide Command" will dizzy you with its high strung intro before the fast paced razor speed of the verse erupts. "R.I.P." has a lush, attractive intro, an echoed vocal narrative over thick bass lines and clean, reverbed guitars before a thundering mid gait. "Coma" and "Totentanz" are likewise legendary extractions, and I love the atmospheric charge of the 'outro' with its angelic choir synthesizers. Perhaps the only songs I don't blow my lid and load over immediately are "Fried Alive" and "Spiral Dreams", the latter hailing from the Death Cult demo and included only on the CD version of the debut, but both are competent and do nothing to break the momentum.
The amount of effort placed in a debut like this is earthshaking. From a composition standpoint, there was more going on in particular tracks than some thrashers create for an entire album. Yet, Coroner never feels like they are wanking off, or overindulging themselves. Certainly there is some degree of flash and flair due to Vetterli's exorbitant performance, but it all fits into the puzzle so beautifully that it just never occurs that he might be showing off. In a period already saturated with so many great or even brilliant albums (Reign in Blood, Finished With the Dogs, Master of Puppets, Zombie Attack, Terrible Certainty, Darkness Descends all just a few examples), the Swiss band still managed to stand out as one to watch with a frightening anticipation, and a superb setup to its spotless successors.
Verdict: Epic Win [9.25/10] (they've been waiting for years)


text:
Finally, the last installment of the "time to say good bye" group of ties.
This particular set is perfect for the person that wants the tie to whisper like the people of Who-ville "we are here". These two ties are sedate and offer just enough to be seen without really being heard. Shown first with the ecru shirt as a light blue would have (totally camouflaged the tie to the background of the shirt), and accompanied with the sky blue and cream floral square. All against a navy suit. First the Blue and Silver Version:
And with the square in play:
And then the blue with beige version of this same tie
Here though I felt that the beige version did more against the blue shirt since it had the beige in it and was getting lost against the cream shirt.
Have a great day! 🙂


text:
|Eli Zaretskii
|Re: [emacs-bidi] Input method with diacritics.
|Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:11:17 +0200
> From: "Yair Friedman (Jerusalem)" <address@hidden> > Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 14:34:00 +0200 > > Stupid SI 1452 put the Hebrew diacritics in the CAPS-Shift map - to > produce all the characters I put in the '[' map, you need to press CAPS, > and then shift-letter e.g. CAPS-Shift-8 produce qamats. Sorry, I don't understand: what is CAPS? is it the CapsLock key? > > The problem with these is that they Shift and Alt are usually taken (Alt > > produces META, a you know), and AltGr might be unavailable (you get a > > usual Alt instead). > > I have a feeling that Emacs knows inside the real key that was hit - it > know if the left or right (Alt/Ctrl/Shift) keys were hit, it knows the > difference between 1 and KP-1, it just has the default binding of the > keys to the same "logical" key. It's not always up to Emacs: some systems, notably a character terminal, hide this in their low-level OS routines, so Emacs never sees the raw keyboard events. We should try not to use features that are only available on some terminals. > What I'd like to do is catch these > differences only when the input method is active, and use them - The > left Alt will stay left while the right one (Sometimes labeled AltGr), > used differently, and also CAPS-Shift would produce different results. If CAPS is CapsLock, Emacs doesn't see it at all on many platforms.
|[Prev in Thread]
|Current Thread
|[Next in Thread]


text:
The Met Office has forecast a clear, cold start for Derbyshire and the East Midlands with some fog that will slowly lift today, Thursday, November 6.
Cloud will thicken from the west during the morning, according to the Met Office, with outbreaks of rain affecting all parts during the afternoon.
By tonight it is expected to be cloudy with further periods of rain, which will become heavy at times later in the night with extensive fog over high ground and strong southerly winds persisting.
The Met Office indicated that temperatures will reach as high as nine degrees centigrade.


text:
Quote:When sucrose-table sugar- is heated, it first melts into a thick syrup. It then slowly changes color, becoming light yellow and progressively deepening to a dark brown. At the same time, its initially sweet flavor takes on a kind of richness, the change we associate with roasting marshmallows or baking meringue. The chemeical reactions involved in caramelization are very numerous and not very well understood [possibly changed by now]. If glucose, an even simpler sugar than the disaccharide sucrose, is browned, this single species of molecule breaks down and recombines to form at least 100 different reaction products, among them sour organic acids, sweet and bitter derivatives, many fragrant volatile molecules, and brown-colored polymers. . . . Both caramelization and the Maillard browning proceed at a significant rate only at relatively high temperatures: caramelization, for example, becomes noticeable at around 310 F (154C). This is because large amounts of energy are required to force the intitial molecular interactions. The practical consequence of this limitation is that most foods brown only on the outside and during the application of dry heat. Recall that water cannot be heated above 212F until it is vaporized, unless it is under high pressure. So foods that are cooked in hot water, and moist interiors of meats and vegetables, will never exceed 212F
Generated in 0.017 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.


text:
Climate "Science" Rocked By Another Scandal
A just-retired scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has blown the whistle on a scandal of epic proportions involving fake news ginned up by climate "scientists." Dr. John Bates, who until the end of 2016 was one of NOAA's top scientists, told the story to the Daily Mail:
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world's leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.
NOAA violated its own rules by publishing the report without subjecting it to required verification procedures–procedures that were designed by Dr. Bates himself.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
Of all the "fake news" stories that emerged in the last two years, this is undoubtedly the most important. More:
NOAA's 2015 'Pausebuster' paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet's surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings 'unstable'.
To Continue:http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/02/climate-science-rocked-by-another-scandal.php


text:
February 22, 2011
Ms. Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street NE
Washington, DC 20549-1090
Ms. Murphy:
Re: Request for comment (S7-45-10 RIN 3235-AK86) on proposed regulations implementing Section 15B (a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, "Registration of Municipal Advisors," brought about by the Dodd-Frank bill.
The Frost National Bank would like to comment on the proposed registration requirements for Municipal Financial Advisors with the Commission.
For decades, commercial banking organizations have been providing financial advisory services to State, county and municipal subdivisions without major issue. These services may range from advising the municipal entity as to what depository instrument may best suit their needs, to how to structure a request for proposal for financial services, to guidance on navigating the many issues surrounding the issuance of municipal debt. This activity is a large part of what commercial banks do everyday for both municipal and non-municipal customers. Regulatory oversight has been vested in the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve or the various State Banking authorities. This oversight process has worked well, with minimal adverse incidents.
Subjecting commercial banking companies to the additional oversight of the Securities Exchange Commission would be both redundant, counter-productive and confusing. The profitability and viability of the commercial banking industry in the United States will be negatively impacted by other aspects of the Dodd-Frank legislation, such as the large reduction in check card fees and the payment of interest on business checking accounts. Adding yet another regulatory burden will not serve to improve either the level of financial advice given to municipalities, or the profitability and viability of the banking system.
Simply put, the recently exposed "bad-actors" were not from the commercial banking industry. Commercial bankers have proven themselves over time to be a dependable, trustworthy source of financial advisory services for States, counties and municipal subdivisions.
Paragraph (4) of Section 15B (a) grants that the Commission by rule of order, upon its own motion or upon application, may conditionally or unconditionally exempt any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, or municipal advisor, or class of brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, or municipal advisors from any provision of this section or the rules or regulations thereunder, if the Commission finds that such exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, and the purposes of this section. It is our belief that it is in the best interest of the public to have a viable and profitable commercial banking industry, and that there is no public benefit to subjecting this industry to another regulatory regimen.
We respectfully request that the Commission consider granting an exemption from the registration requirements of this Act in accordance with the above mentioned paragraph (4) to the commercial banking industry.
Very truly yours,
William H. Sirakos
Senior Executive President
The Frost National Bank
San Antonio, Texas