Ex Parte Schauerte

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2007

10134817 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANFRED SCHAUERTE
____________

Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: July 25, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM,
and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 17-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method for continuously supplying drilling
fluid suspension to a horizontal drill head. Claim 19 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
19. A method for continuously supplying drilling fluid suspension
comprising water and a drilling fluid additive medium to a horizontal drill
head, said method comprising:

providing a continuous stream of water;

providing drilling fluid additive medium;

introducing said additive medium to said stream of water at a selected
location to form a drilling fluid suspension stream;

pressurizing said water stream or drilling fluid suspension stream in
the vicinity of said selected location by flowing such stream through a high
pressure pump to enhance mixing of additive medium and water and to
provide a pressurized drilling fluid suspension stream;

conveying said pressurized drilling fluid suspension stream through a
static mixing chamber; and

continuously conveying said pressurized drilling fluid suspension
stream to a horizontal drill head.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Venema US 4,051,065 Sep. 27, 1977
Landers US 5,413,184 May 9, 1995

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as indefinite;
2
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

2. Claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as
lacking written descriptive support; and
3. Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Venema in view of Landers.
In reviewing the rejections, we consider the dispositive issues arising
from the contentions in the Brief filed April 6, 2005, the Answer filed June
2, 2005, and the Reply Brief filed August 1, 2005.

II. DISCUSSION
A. Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as indefinite.
According to the Examiner:
a. Claims 17 and 18 are rendered indefinite by the phrase “said
swelling section having a length or width sufficient to allow swelling of the
suspension stream” as recited in claim 17.
b. Claims 17-20 are rendered indefinite by the use of the relative term
“high pressure” in claims 17 and 19.
c. Claims 21 and 22 are rendered indefinite by the phrase “a pressure
sufficient to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string” as recited in claim
21.
In each case, the issue before us is: Is there is a reasonable basis to
believe that the ordinary artisan in the art of horizontal drilling would not be
able to determine the scope of the claim? In each case, we answer this
question in the negative.
3
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

“The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope.” In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Miles Lab.,
Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (If the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise
those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no
more). “The degree of precision necessary for adequate claims is a function
of the nature of the subject matter.” Id.
With regard to the limitation on the length or width sufficient to allow
swelling as recited in claim 17, the Examiner contends that it is unclear what
length or width is required by the claims (Answer 4). The Examiner points
out that the Specification does not disclose that there is a minimum length or
width below which swelling will not occur (id.).
While the Specification does not recite a minimum length or width,
the lack of such a disclosure is not enough in this case to support a
conclusion of indefiniteness. The Examiner has failed to establish that one
of ordinary skill in the art of horizontal drilling systems and processes would
not understand what lengths and widths would infringe. See All Dental
Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Products, Inc., 309 F.3d 774, 779-80, 64
USPQ2d 1945, 1949 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(“The primary purpose of the
definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a
way that they give notice to the public of the extent of the legal protection
afforded by the patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g.,
competitors of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they
infringe.). This is because the Specification specifically describes a swelling
4
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

section (shown, e.g., at 16 in Fig. 1) which allows the drilling suspension to
swell (Specification 7:15-17). The swelling section 16 is illustrated as
having a length and width in the figures and, according to the Specification,
it is a specific structure that “may consist of an intermediate container or a
coiled tube, or … the section of the drilling pipe 10.” (Specification 7:17-
20). Any section of pipe downstream of the pump that would allow swelling
will have “a length or width sufficient to allow swelling of the suspension
stream” as claimed. The limitation is so broad as to be almost meaningless
(based on changes in pressure, almost any length of pipe will allow swelling
of a swellable material) but “breadth is not indefiniteness.” In re Gardner,
427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970).
With regard to the use of the relative term “high pressure” in claims
17 and 19, the Examiner contends that this terminology is indefinite because
no numerical examples were provided in the Specification and the record
reflects that the term “high pressure” does not refer to a reasonably definite
concept (Answer 4).
We agree with the Examiner that the term “high” is a term of degree.
We also agree that the Specification provides no standard, numerical or
otherwise, for measuring the degree of “high.” However, while the absence
of a standard in the Specification for measuring what is “high” may have
initially supported a reasonable basis for concluding that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have been reasonably apprised of the scope of the
claim, see Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d
818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that “[w]hen a
word of degree is used the district court must determine whether the patent’s
5
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.”), Appellant
has provided evidence that the metes and bounds of the terminology would
have been reasonably understood by those of ordinary skill in the pertinent
art, i.e., the art of horizontal drilling apparatus.
The evidence proffered by Appellant shows that, while the
terminology may cover pressures of varying nature in varying situations, the
term “high pressure” in the context of pumps used in horizontal drilling rigs
had a customary meaning based not only on pressure levels but on location
and use (see, e.g., Exhibit E (“[f]or example the hydraulic power pack for a
rig will invariably be referred to as a ‘high pressure’ pump, yet a transfer
pump scavenging recovered drilling fluid into a collection tank only a few
feet above it will invariably be referred to as a ‘low pressure’ pump.”; see
also Exhibit D, an information guide describing drilling fluid mixing and
delivery systems as including, in the mixing system, a high-volume, low-
pressure pump and, in the mud delivery system, a high-pressure, low-volume
pump). The evidence supports Appellant’s Specification which indicates
that, customarily, drilling fluid was “generally fed to the drill by a high-
pressure pump.” (Specification 3:10). These pumps operate at pressures
well above atmospheric (see, e.g. Exhibit A and the Schauerte Declaration,
Exhibit C) and are distinguished from the high volume, low pressure pumps
that were conventionally used for drilling fluid mixing (Exhibit D, p. 14).
The Examiner contends that the Appellant’s exhibits reflect
contradictory notions of high pressure (Answer 9-10). We do not agree.
While the exhibits reflect a certain looseness in the way the term is used, a
general guideline emerges. Pumps that operate at pressures around
6
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

atmospheric pressure are “low-pressure pumps” while pumps that operate at
higher pressures are “high-pressure pumps.” That some “high-pressure”
pumps in horizontal drilling usually operate between 50 and 100 bar or even
higher does not contradict the statement that a pump operating at about 1.5
atmospheres will also be termed a “high-pressure” pump.
The evidence as a whole supports the conclusion that “high pressure,”
as applied to pumps used in horizontal drilling, has a reasonably precise
meaning in the art. Mathematical precision should not be imposed for its
own sake; Appellant may claim the invention in terms that would be
understood by persons of skill in the field of the invention. Modine Mfg. Co.
v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1557, 37 USPQ2d 1609, 1617
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
With regard to the scope of pressure required by “a pressure sufficient
to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string” as recited in claim 21, the
Examiner contends that the Specification provides no example of any
pressure which would or would not satisfy this limitation (Answer 5). But
the Examiner does not state why an example is required. It would seem that
those of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what pressures are
required to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string.
We conclude that the there is a reasonable basis to believe that the
ordinary artisan in the art of horizontal drilling would be able to determine
the scope of the claims.
B. Lack of Written Descriptive Support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1
Claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as
lacking written descriptive support. According to the Examiner:
7
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

a. In claim 17, “said swelling section having a length or width
sufficient to allow swelling of the suspension stream” is considered to be
new matter.
b. In claim 21, “producing a pressure sufficient to feed a horizontal
drill head via a drill string” and the further recitation of “drill string” later in
the claim is new matter.
In each case the issue is: Is the Examiner’s finding of lack of written
descriptive support supported by a preponderance of the evidence?
As stated in In re Kaslow,
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal
support in the specification for the claim language. The content
of the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.

In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(citations omitted). The question is not whether the claims use the same
words as the Specification, but whether the concept of the claim limitation is
in the Specification. See In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1244, 176 USPQ
331, 336 (CCPA 1973)(“The question, as we view it, is not whether
‘carrying’ was a word used in the specification as filed but whether there is
support in the specification for employment of the term in a claim; is the
concept of carrying present in the original disclosure?”).
With respect to the limitation in claim 17, “said swelling section
having a length or width sufficient to allow swelling of the suspension
8
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

stream,” the Examiner finds this language to be new matter because the
limitation presumes that there is some minimum length and/or width
required to allow swelling, however, the Specification does not discuss such
a minimum length and/or width (Answer 3).
We cannot agree that there is no support on the basis provided by the
Examiner. The Specification describes a swelling section 16 which allows
swelling and which is a container, coiled tube, or section of drilling pipe.
Figure 1 illustrates a swelling section with a length and width. Inherently
the swelling section must have a length and width sufficient to allow the
swelling that is purported to take place within the structure.
With respect to the limitation in claim 21, “producing a pressure
sufficient to feed a horizontal drill head via a drill string” and “drill string”
in general, the Examiner contends this limitation contains new matter
because (1) there is no discussion of a “drill string,” (2) no discussion of a
relationship between a “drill string” and pressure, and (3) there is no
discussion of “sufficient pressure” in the original Specification (Answer 3).
That one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Appellant
was in possession of what is claimed is evidenced from the description of the
process as for horizontal drilling and that there is a section of drilling pipe
10 via which the suspension is fed to the drilling head 11 or the expansion
tool 17 (Specification 7:17-20). “Drill string” is simply another name for the
drill pipe 10. In order to accomplish the horizontal drilling described in the
Specification, a sufficient pressure must be present to feed the drill head via
the drill string (drill pipe 10) as claimed. That Appellant was in possession
of what is claimed is evident from the original disclosure.
9
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

The Examiner’s finding of lack of written descriptive support is not
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. At best, the terminology
used in the claims lacks antecedent basis in the Specification. While a lack
of antecedent basis in the Specification may support an objection under 37
C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1), see MPEP § 608.01(o), that alone does not support a
rejection for lack of written descriptive support.
C. Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Venema in view of Landers.
The issue is: Has Appellant (1) shown that the Examiner’s basis for
the rejection is flawed or (2) overcome the rejection through a showing of
secondary indicia of nonobviousness? See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-
86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”).
Appellant has not convinced us of a reversible error in the rejection
nor overcome the rejection with a showing of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.
The following facts are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Venema is directed to an apparatus and process for dissolving water
soluble polymers and gums in water. The polymer may, for instance, serve
as a stabilizer for drilling muds (Venema, col. 1, ll. 11-16). The process
releases the polymer into water to produce an “activated solution,” i.e., a
swelled or thickened solution, that “can be readily employed for one or more
10
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

of the commercial applications previously mentioned” (e.g., as a drilling
mud containing the polymer as a stabilizer) (Venema, col. 1, ll. 57-65).
In the process, water is introduced into water line 27 and, if necessary,
the pressure is increased by pump 29 (Venema, col. 3, ll. 34-461). A
surfactant mixes in-line with the water before an emulsion containing the
polymer is added (Venema, col. 3, ll. 46-48). Venema illustrates the
surfactant addition as taking place just downstream from the pump 29, valve
32, and water meter 34 (the Figure). Venema further illustrates feeding the
polymer-containing emulsion into the water/surfactant mixture within
conduit 16, at a point near the inlet end 3 of a Static Mixer 1 (the Figure; see
also Venema, col. 2, l. 65 to col. 3, l. 20). “The placement of a surfactant
into the water and subsequent mixing with the polymer emulsion in the
Static Mixer causes the emulsion to rapidly invert and release the polymer in
the form of an aqueous solution.” (Venema, col. 7, ll. 62-65). Activation of
the polymer (swelling of the polymer to form a thickened solution) does not
occur until 5 to 25 minutes after mixing in the Static Mixer (Venema, col. 9,
33-49).
Venema includes an example in which the pressure drop across the
Static Mixer was approximately 20-25 psig (Venema, col. 4, ll. 37-39), and
Venema further discloses that the pressure drop can vary depending on
various factors but usually should be within the range of 5-40 psig (Venema,
col. 4, ll. 39-40). In order to convey the solution through the Static Mixer,
the pressure within conduit 16 must be greater than the pressure drop within

1 The word “weather” as used in column 3, line 34 of Venema is clearly a
typographical error properly corrected to read “water.”
11
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

the mixer. Pump 29, when needed, pressurizes the water stream in conduit
16 that feeds the Static Mixer. Pumps 10 and 21 pressurize conduits 13 and
24, respectively, to allow addition of the polymer and surfactant to the water
in conduit 16. Pump 29 is the main conveying force in the system.
As surfactants, Venema discloses that any water soluble surfactant can
be used (Venema, col. 9, ll. 3-5). Venema also discloses that other
surfactants including clays can be used (Venema, col. 9, ll. 28-32).
Landers is directed to a method and apparatus for horizontal well
drilling. Landers evinces the well known aspect of using a drilling fluid in
horizontal well drilling. Landers describes the fluid 56 as generally a
mixture of a surfactant and water (Landers, col. 4, ll. 11-12).
Appellant’s Specification further indicates that use of a drilling fluid
in horizontal drilling was conventional in the art (Specification 2:6-10). The
clay bentonite was commonly used as a drilling fluid additive as were
polymers (Specification 2:11-20)
Appellant argues claims 17, 19, and 21 as a group and claims 18, 20,
and 22 as a second group. We select claim 19 as representative for the first
group and 20 as representative for the second group.
1. Claim 19
Upon reviewing the arguments of Appellant, we find that many of the
arguments raise the question of what the claims encompass. For instance,
according to Appellant, the surfactant of Venema cannot be considered a
“drilling fluid additive medium” as claimed (Br. 42). Further according to
Appellant, Venema’s pump 29 does not pump pressurized drilling fluid
suspension to a horizontal drill head (Br. 43-44), nor pressurize the water
12
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

stream “in the vicinity of” the selected location (Br. 45-46; Reply Br. 14-16),
nor is it a “high pressure” pump (Reply Br. 14). These arguments raise
issues of claim interpretation.
During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent
claim language carrying a narrow meaning, we only limit the claim based on
the specification when those sources expressly disclaim the broader
definition. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324-25, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1210-11
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Looking to the Specification, we find no language particularly
limiting the identity of the claimed “drilling fluid additive medium.” The
Specification mentions “additives, such as the pulverulent bentonite,” talks
of providing a feed line for the “additive medium,” and names
“supplementary additives such as, for example, polymers or soda ash.”
(Specification 3:20-31). The Specification is, therefore, open ended with
regard to the identity of the additive medium.
We, therefore, analyze the plain language of the words. The broadest
reasonable interpretation of “drilling fluid additive medium,” based on the
language itself, includes any compound or composition added to a fluid
destined to be used as a drilling fluid.
13
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

From the above analysis, we determine that both the surfactant and the
polymer of Venema are “drilling fluid additive mediums” within the
meaning of claim 19.
With regard to Appellant’s contention that Venema’s pump 29 does
not pump pressurized drilling fluid suspension to a horizontal drill head (Br.
43-44), we note that claim 19 contains no such limitation. Claim 19 merely
requires that the pump “provide a pressurized drilling fluid suspension
stream.” The claim is open to any destination including those other than the
horizontal drill head.
Turning to the language “pressurizing said water stream or drilling
fluid suspension stream in the vicinity of said selected location by flowing
such stream through a high pressure pump,” this language requires
“pressurizing … in the vicinity of said selected location,” (claim 19
(emphasis added) not placing the pump “in the vicinity of said selected
location.” The pressurization must occur “by flowing such stream through a
high pressure pump” but placing the pump upstream will pressurize the
stream at all points downstream until there is a significant pressure drop. In
the context of Venema, the water in throughout conduit 16 is pressurized by
pump 29. Venema introduces both the surfactant and polymer additives at
selected locations within the pressurized conduit 16. Therefore, Venema
teaches “pressurizing said water stream … in said vicinity of the selected
location” as claimed.
The pressurizing is accomplished “by flowing such stream through a
high pressure pump” as claimed. (Claim 19). We note that, as established
above with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, “high
14
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

pressure” is not limited to any particular ranges of pressure, but is
customarily so named on the basis of location and function in addition to
pressure. Pump 29 of Venema can reasonably be called a high pressure
pump according to its location and function as well as the pressure drop it
must overcome. Pump 29 is located in the main conveying line that supplies
the water and polymer solution to the Static Mixer and discharge line (see
the Figure). While other pumps, namely, pumps 10 and 21, provide the
pressure required to feed the additives to the mainline, it is the pump 29 that
must provide the bulk of the pressure of conveyance through the Static
Mixer. This is evident from its location in the mainline. Pump 29 must be
capable of overcoming the Static Mixer pressure drop. That drop is at least
20-25 psig (35-40 psia) and can be 40 psig (55 psia). The fact that it must
be able to pressurize to 40-55 psia levels (2.7-3.8 bars), and functions to
convey fluid through the system rather than mix, makes it reasonable to term
it a “high pressure pump” in accordance with the customary language of the
art of horizontal drilling.
Appellant states in passing that Venema illustrates pump 29 as a
centrifugal pump, not a positive displacement pump (Reply Br. 14). But
Appellant offers no evidence that a circle with a “P” within as illustrated by
Venema is commonly used to illustrate a centrifugal pump.
We determine that “high pressure pump” as claimed reasonably
encompasses pump 29 of Venema.
Appellant further contends that the combination of Venema and
Landers is improper because Venema’s polymer-in-water “stabilizer”
15
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

requires further mixing to form a drilling mud whereas Landers teaches
drilling mud that is already mixed (Br. 43-44, 49-50; Reply Br. 15).
First, we do not agree with Appellant’s interpretation of Venema.
Venema describes the water-soluble polymer as a stabilizer for drilling mud
(Venema, col. 1, ll. 8-16). This polymer is incorporated into a solution in
the process of Venema which activates the polymer, i.e., swells it, as it is
released into the water. Venema states that “the resultant activated solution
can be readily employed for one or more of the commercial applications
previously mentioned.” (Venema, col. 1, ll. 63-65). In other words, the
polymer is a stabilizer, and the solution product of Venema is a drilling mud.
Venema further indicates that the surfactant can be a clay. Appellant’s own
Specification indicates that it was well known to use such mixtures as
drilling muds in horizontal drilling, and that in these processes the drilling
fluid is fed to the drill from a tank (Specification 2:7-20). While Venema
does not describe how the drilling mud is provided to the drilling head, it
would be conveyed to the drilling head by some means. One way evident
from the art is by discharging the activated solution into a tank such as that
taught by Landers.
Nor can we agree that Landers teaches away from the combination.
The premix 56 of water and surfactant residing in container 54 of Landers
must be formed somehow. Venema describes a method of making a
surfactant and water solution.
2. Claim 20
Appellant’s contention with regard to the second group of claims is
that Venema’s pump 29 is upstream, not downstream from the selected
16
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

location of additive addition and, therefore, the pump 29 cannot provide the
claimed pressurization (Br. 51-53; Reply Br. 16-17). Taking claim 20 as
representative, we determine that this claim does not require that the pump
be located downstream of the selected location. Claim 20 is directed to
“[t]he method of claim 19 in which said pressurizing occurs downstream of
said selected location.” (emphasis added). Pumping causes pressurizing, but
pressurizing is not limited to the pump location, it continues along the piping
system. In Venema, pressurizing occurs all along conduit 16 including
downstream of the selected locations of surfactant and polymer addition.
Therefore, the claim encompasses the pressurizing of Venema.
Appellant does not rely upon evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.
Appellant has neither shown that the Examiner’s basis for the
rejection is flawed nor overcome the rejection through a showing of
secondary indicia of nonobviousness.

III. CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, nor the rejection of claims 17, 18, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as lacking written descriptive support. However, we do
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Venema in view of Landers.

IV. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject the claims is AFFIRMED.
17
Appeal 2005-2547
Application 10/134,817

V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

sld/ls

COOK, ALEX, MCFARRON, MANZO, CUMMINGS
& MEHLER LTD
SUITE 2850
200 WEST ADAMS STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60606
18