Ex Parte Arneson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2009

10155996 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KIRK ARNESON
and
JACOB ANDERSON
____________

Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 June 17, 2009
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kirk Arneson, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. §
134 of the final rejection of claims 1-9 and 12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 2

THE INVENTION
The invention is a database structure and a method for processing
project data. Specification [0001].
In an exemplary embodiment of the present
invention, a method of processing project data
includes (a) receiving customer specifications, (b)
identifying an engine model based on the customer
specifications, (c) storing package options based
on the engine model identified in (b), (d) enabling
a user to select the package options from the stored
package options, and (e) generating selected
reports based on the package options selected in
(d).
Specification [0008].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Oct. 10, 2007) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 12, 2008),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 31, 2007).

Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

3
1. A method of processing manufacturing
project data for a product to be manufactured, the
method comprising:
(a) receiving customer specifications for the
product;
(b) identifying a product model based on the
customer specifications;
(c) storing manufacturing package options
based on the product model identified in (b);
(d) enabling a user to select the
manufacturing package options from the stored
package options; and
(e) generating selected reports based on the
package options selected in (d), the reports being
for use prior to manufacturing the product to
define a manufacturing process, at least one of the
selected reports identifying open items required
before releasing the manufacturing project data to
commence the manufacturing process.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Long US 5,117,354 May 26, 1992

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Long.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Long.

Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

4
ARGUMENTS
The Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 12 and dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 separately, but have not separately argued dependent
claims 4, 6, and 8 (App Br. 13). Therefore, claims 4, 6, and 8 will stand or
fall with claim 1 from which they depend. The Appellants’ arguments and
the Examiner’s responses are:
Claims 1 and 12
The Appellants argue that claim 1 requires that the report be generated
prior to commencing the manufacturing process since claim 1 recites “at
least one of the selected reports identifying open items required before
releasing the manufacturing project data to commence the manufacturing
process.” App. Br. 12-13. Emphasis added. The Appellants assert that once
the product ID in Long is transmitted to the manufacturer, there are no
further open items required to define the manufacturing process and that the
manufacturer simply schedules the product for manufacture. App. Br. 12.
The Appellants further argue that claim 12 defines related subject matter and
is patentable for the same reasons. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner contends that the product ID of Long is a minimized
report used to define the manufacturing product (Ans. 8) and that Long
describes sending the order to the manufacturer (Ans. 4). The Examiner also
references Longs job information questionnaire (JIQ) information as part of
the report. Id.
Claim 2
The Appellants argue that Long does not describe a budget report as
recited in claim 2 and that a price quote is distinguishable from a budget
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

5
report. App. Br. 13. The Examiner asserts that Long’s manufacturer’s quote
to the sales representative reads on this limitation. Ans. 4.
Claim 3
The Appellants argue that Long does not describe storing line item
cost estimate for each component in the product model and enabling a
comparison with actual costs. App. Br. 13. The Appellants further argue
that Long does not provide “any vehicle to monitor actual costs.” Id. The
Examiner references column 9 of Long and asserts that the “manufacturing
cost/line item could be compared to final/actual costs.” Ans. 8.
Claim 5
The Appellants argue that Long does not describe generating a
features and options report including a list of figures available based on the
product model and selected package options as recited in claim 5. App. Br.
14. The Examiner asserts that that the product ID of Long is a minimized
report that outlines the selected options. Ans. 8.
Claim 7
The Appellants argue that Long does not describe enabling the user to
update/modify the selected package options, and storing historical project
data identifying updated/modified information including a particular user,
date and time of update/modification. App. Br. 14. The Appellants further
argue that the saved common product IDs described in long and are not
historical project data that include the user that made the modification, etc.
Id.
The Examiner again references the common PID files of Long which
can be edited and saved. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

6
Claim 9
The Appellants challenge the Examiner’s contention that it would
have been obvious to receive approval from both a customer and
management prior to completing the order since Long does not disclose
submitting a request for proposal to manufacturers before ordering a
customer product as the Examiner asserts. App. Br. 14. Further, the
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s contention does not meet the step of
automatically successively routing a report including the items requiring
approval to each approval manager in claim 9. App. Br. 15-16. The
Examiner responds that Long discloses submitting a request for proposal to
manufacture before ordering a custom product. The Examiner also found
that custom goods are often non-returnable and non-refundable and would
be a large expense to the sales representative organization if not proper. The
Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included a
management approval process to increase system effectiveness and reduce
costs. Ans. 9.

ISSUES
The issues are:
Does method claim 1 and apparatus claim 12 require that the report,
which identifies open items, be sent to the manufacture prior to
manufacturing the product and if so, does Long describe this?
Does the step of generating a budget report based on the package
options as recited in claim 2 read on Long’s description of creating a
manufacturer’s price quote?
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

7
Does claim 3 require storing line item cost estimates and a vehicle to
monitor actual costs and if so, does Long describe this?
Does Long describe generating a features and options report based on
the package options selected in (d), the features and options report including
a list of figures available based on the product model and the selected
package options as recited in claim 5?
Does Long describe enabling the user to update/modify the selected
package options, and storing historical project data identifying
update/modified information including a particular user, date and time of
update/modification as recited in claim 7?
Would one of ordinary skill in the art be led by Long to the step of
enabling at least one approval manager to review items requiring approval,
and, if multiple approvals are required for one or more items, the method
comprising automatically successively routing a report including the items
requiring approval for each approval manager as recited in claim 9?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
Claim construction
1. Claim 1 recites a method including step “(e) generating selected
reports based on the package options selected in (d), the reports
being for use prior to manufacturing the product to define a
manufacturing process, at least one of the selected reports
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

8
identifying open items required before releasing the manufacturing
project data to commence the manufacturing process.”
2. Claim 2 recites “wherein step (e) is practiced by generating a
budget report based on the package options selected in (d).”
3. Claim 3 recites “wherein step (e) is further practiced by storing
line item cost estimates for each component in the product model
and enabling a comparison with actual costs.”
4. Claim 5 recites “wherein step (e) is practiced by generating a
features and options report based on the package options selected
in (d), the features and options report including a list of figures
available based on the product model and the selected package
options.”
5. Claim 7 recites “wherein step (d) comprises enabling the user to
update/modify the selected package options, and storing historical
project data identifying updated/modified information including a
particular user, date and time of update/modification.”
6. Claim 9 recites a method including step
(e) generating selected reports based on the
package options selected in (d), wherein step (e)
comprises enabling at least one approval manager
to review items requiring approval, and wherein if
multiple approvals are required for one or more
items, the method comprising automatically
successively routing a report including the items
requiring approval to each approval manager.
7. Claim 12 recites a system including a processor that “generates
selected reports based on the selected package options, the reports
being for use prior to manufacturing the product to define a
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

9
manufacturing process, at least one of the selected reports
identifying open items required before releasing the manufacturing
project data to commence the manufacturing process.”
8. The Specification does not provide a definition for “report.”
9. The definition of “report” is “a usu. detailed account or statement.”
(See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 992 (10th Ed.
1998.)(Entry for “report.”)
10. The Specification does not provide a definition for “budget.”
11. The definition of “budget” is “the amount of money that is
available for, required for, or assigned to a particular purpose.”
(See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 148 (10th Ed.
1998.)(Entry for “budget.”)
The scope and content of the prior art
12. Long describes a system for remote pricing and entry of orders for
custom manufactured items. Col. 2, ll. 36-37.
13. Long describes a sales representative constructing quotations or
orders. Col. 4, ll. 22-23.
14. Long describes the quote file as having quantity and product
identification codes or product IDs for each item in the job. Col 8,
ll. 47-49.
15. Long describes the product ID as a lengthy alpha-numeric
character string that encodes sufficient specifications about the
particular part, style, color, finish and size. Col. 6, ll. 38-45.
16. Long describes the sale representative creating a product ID by
changing product specifications and selecting option items in a
product identification code builder. Col. 7, ll. 42-61.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

10
17. Long describes the sales representative sending data files having
the quotations to a manufacturer host computer by electronic mail.
Col. 4, ll. 28-31.
18. Long describes the manufacturer downloading the data files having
the quotations, calculating price information and uploading a price
quote to send to the sales representative by electronic mail. Col. 4,
ll. 38-45.
19. Long describes the manufacturer pricing each line item of the
quote. Col. 9, ll. 14-16.
20. Long describes the sales representative downloading the price
quote and merging the price quote file with the saved quote file.
Col. 9, ll. 39-43.
21. Long describes the program entering and editing the appropriate
multipliers to create a completed price quote. Col. 9, ll. 43-47.
22. Long describes obtaining order transmittal information and job
information questionnaire (JIQ) entry information from a user if
the user desires to send an order to the manufacturer. Col. 9, l. 59
– col. 10, l. 4.
23. Long describes the JIQ information as required by the
manufacturer to fulfill an order and therefore, the program will not
send an order until the information has been supplied. Col. 10, ll.
10-13.
24. Long describes transmitting the priced quote, order transmittal
information and JIQ information together to the manufacturer via
electronic mail as the order. Col. 10, ll. 15-19.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

11
25. Long describes the manufacturer as downloading the order,
printing the order, scheduling the order, and manufacturing the
order. Col. 10, ll. 21-35.
26. Long describes the system having an option to allow the sales
person to print a submittal report, which is a form for submission
to the customer. Col. 10, ll. 38-43.
27. Long describes the system having an option to edit and create
common product IDs and store the common product IDs in a file.
Col. 11, ll. 12-18.
Any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art
28. Long does not describe enabling at least one manager to review
items requiring approval.
29. Long does not describe the comprising automatically successively
routing a report including the items requiring approval to each
approval manager if multiple approvals are required for one or
more items.
30. Long does not describe the step of storing historical project data
identifying updated/modified information.
The level of skill in the art
31. Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants have addressed the level
of ordinary skill in the pertinent art of electronic commerce. We
will therefore consider the cited prior art as representative of the
level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific
findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

12
level and a need for testimony is not shown’”) (Quoting Litton
Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163
(Fed. Cir. 1985)).
32. The Examiner asserts that it is within the skill in the art to receive
approval from both a customer and management prior to
completing an order, as custom goods are often non-
returnable/non-refundable and are a large expense to the sales
representative organization if not proper. Ans. 7.
Secondary considerations
33. There is no evidence on record of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness for our consideration.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a pending claim is given
the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification and
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 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
[W]e look to the specification to see if it provides
a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a
broad interpretation. As this court has discussed,
this methodology produces claims with only
justifiable breadth. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, as applicants
may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee. Am. Acad.,
367 F.3d at 1364.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

13
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not
read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Obviousness
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these
questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors
continue to define the inquiry that controls.”) The Court in Graham further
noted that evidence of secondary considerations “might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought
to be patented.” 383 U.S. at 17-18.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

14
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-8 and 12 under § 102(b) as anticipated by Long.
Method Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8
A determination that a claim is anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps.
First, the Board must interpret the claim language,
where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to
give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation, our review of the Board's claim
construction is limited to determining whether it
was reasonable. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Secondly, the Board must
compare the construed claim to a prior art
reference and make factual findings that “each and
every limitation is found either expressly or
inherently in [that] single prior art reference.”
Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150
F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Footnote omitted).
Claim 1 is drawn to a method including step (e) which recites
“generating selected reports based on package options” and “wherein at least
one of the selected reports identifies open items required before releasing the
manufacturing project data to commence the manufacturing process.” FF 1.
The Specification does not define “report.” FF 8. The definition of report is
a usually detailed account or statement. FF 9. We construe claim 1 to
require a usually detailed account or statement based on a package option
that includes open items. The identified open items are required before
releasing the manufacturing project data to commence the manufacturing
process. We note that claim 1 does not recite a limitation as to the time
frame of generating the report including as to when the open items are
identified. Claim 1 does not recite a limitation as to who generates or
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

15
receives the report. Claim 1 does not recite that the manufacturer receives
the report with the items still open, as the Appellants seem to argue (App.
Br. 12).
Assuming that a reference is properly “prior art,” it is
only necessary that the claims under attack, as construed by the
court, “read on” something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all
limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or “fully
met” by it.”
Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We find that Long describes generating an order (FF 24), which is a detailed
statement of products that need to be purchased. The order in Long is an
electronic transmittal created by the program (FF 24), and Long describes
the program refusing to advance the order transmittal until JIQ information
is supplied with the order (FF 23). Long states “[b]ecause such JIQ
information is required by the manufacturer to properly fill such an order,
the program will refuse to advance to order transmittal until the requested
JIQ information is supplied.” Col. 10, ll. 10-13. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1.
Apparatus Claim 12
The Appellants challenge the rejection of claim 12 for the same
reasons argued in challenging the rejection of claim 1. We note that claim
12 recites an apparatus, comprising a processor which performs step (e) of
claim 1. FF 7. Since we found those arguments unpersuasive as to error in
the rejection of claim 1, we reach the same conclusion as to the rejection of
claim 12.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

16
Method Claim 2
Like our analysis for claim 1, we first construe claim 2. Claim 2
recites “wherein step (e) is practiced by generating a budget report based on
the package options selected in (d).” FF 2. The Specification does not
contain a definition of “budget” or “report.” FF 8 and 10. The definition of
“budget” is the amount of money that is available for, required for, or
assigned to a particular purpose (FF 11), and the definition of “report” is a
usually detailed account or statement (FF 9). We find that the broadest
reasonable construction of claim 2 in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art is generating a detailed account
or statement of the amount of money that is available, required, or assigned
based on the package options selected.
We find that the claimed step of generating a budget report based on
package options is read on by Long’s description of the manufacturer
creating a price quote based on the product IDs (FF 18). The price quote is a
statement of the money required for the products. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2.
Method Claim 3
We find that claim 3 does require storing of line item cost, but does
not require a “vehicle to monitor actual costs” as the Appellants argue.
Claim 3 recites “wherein step (e) is further practiced by storing line item
cost estimates for each component in the product model and enabling a
comparison with actual costs.” FF 3. Claim 3 does recite storing of line
item cost. However, claim 3 does not recite a vehicle to monitor actual
costs. “Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because, . . . they
are not based on limitations appearing in the claims . . . .” In re Self, 671
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

17
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Claim 3 only requires that a comparison is
enabled. We find that this is read on by creating a file that includes the
estimated costs of line items. The created file would then enable a person to
compare the estimated cost with actual costs. Claim 3 does not limit the
manner in which the comparison is enabled.
We find that the recited step of storing line item cost estimates for
each component in the product model is read on by Long’s description of the
manufacturer pricing each line item of the quote in a priced quote file. FF
14. The creation of the priced quote file enables the customer, sales
representative or manufacturer to compare the estimates costs with actual
costs. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Method Claim 5
We find that Long’s creations of an order which is transmitted to the
manufacturer (FF 22-24) reads on the step of generating a features and
options report based on the selected package options as recited in claim 5.
The order includes a list of figures such as the product ID, and pricing
available from the quote (FF 14 and 24). Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claim 5.
Method Claim 7
We find that Long does describe editing and storing common product
IDs (FF 27) as asserted by the Examiner (Ans. 9) which does read on the
step of enabling the user to update/modify the selected package options as
recited in claim 7 (FF 5). However, claim 7 also recites the step of storing
historical project data identifying updated/modified information including a
particular user, date and time of update/and modification. FF 5. It is well
settled that in order for the examiner to establish a prima facie case of
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

18
anticipation, each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
required by the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency. See generally, In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Diversitech Corp. v.
Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677-78 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We find that Long does not describe the step of
storing historical project data identifying updated/modified information.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
The rejection of method claim 9 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Long.
Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what
is the invention claimed? Courts are required to
view the claimed invention as a whole. 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Claim interpretation, in light of the
specification, claim language, other claims, and
prosecution history, is a matter of law and will
normally control the remainder of the decisional
process.
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68 (Fed. Cir.
1987) (Footnote omitted).
Claim 9 recites step (e)
generating selected reports based on the package
options selected in (d), wherein step (e) comprises
enabling at least one approval manager to review
items requiring approval, and wherein if multiple
approvals are required for one or more items, the
method comprising automatically successively
routing a report including the items requiring
approval to each approval manager.
FF 6.
Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

19
However, claim 9, as broadly construed above, requires step (e)
generating selected reports based on the package options selected in (d),
wherein step (e) comprises enabling at least one approval manager to review
items requiring approval. FF 6. The Appellants argue that Long does not
describe a management approval process. App. Br. 14. We find that claim 9
does not require a management approval process. Claim 9 requires enabling
at least one approval manager to review the item requiring approval but does
not recite a step of actually obtaining manager approval.
Long describes a sales representative creating a quote file based on
the package options selected and transmitting the quote file to a
manufacturer. FF 12-17. The generation and transmission of the quote file
would enable at least one approval manager at the manufacturer to review
any items requiring approval. Therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill
in art would have been led by Long to step (e) of claim 9 as construed above.
However, claim 9 also recites “and wherein if multiple approvals are
required for one or more items, the method comprising automatically
successively routing a report including the items requiring approval to each
approval manager.” FF 6. We find that Long does not describe a process
that includes automatically successively routing a report, if multiple
approvals are required. FF 29. Further, the Examiner does not explain
whether the step of automatically successively routing a report, if multiple
approval are required, would be within the ordinary skill of the art. Ans. 6-
7. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
showing of obviousness in rejecting claim 9.

Appeal 2009-000466
Application 10/155,996

20
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Long. We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Long and claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Long.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to rejection claims 1-6, 8 and 12 is
affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7 and 9 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh

NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203