14300471 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019)

Ex Parte Cheong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 4, 2019

14300471 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/300,471 06/10/2014 33438 7590 02/06/2019 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Seen Yee Cindy Cheong UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. DC-103192.01 3891 EXAMINER HAIEM, SEAN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): heather@tcciplaw.com tmunoz@tcciplaw.com USPTO@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEEN YEE CINDY CHEONG, LIAM B. QUINN, and CHEE SOOTAN Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17. See Appeal Br. 4. Claims 6, 12, and 18 have been canceled. Id. at 8, 10, 12 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed Aug. 24, 2017; the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed Feb. 21, 2018; the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed April 12, 2018; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed June 11, 2018. 2 The real party in interest is listed as Dell Products L.P. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 Invention "It is known to provide ... display devices with a plurality of video inputs." Spec. ,r 3. Some display devices display two or more video sources simultaneously on a screen using a Picture-By-Picture (PBP) operation mode or a Picture-In-Picture (PIP) operation mode. Spec. ,r 3. Selecting a PBP or PIP operation mode, however, may be challenging for a user. Spec. ,r 5. Appellants' invention relates to a "multiple video source screen presentation selection module" that polls a display device for a video source status and proactively generates a prompt to allow the user to select a "multisource video presentation mode of operation" when more than one video source is detected. Spec. ,r,r 6, 18. If the "multiple video source screen presentation selection module" determines more than one device is coupled to the display device, the user may select a PIP operation mode or a PBP operation mode. Spec. ,r 21. Claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implementable method for enabling selection of a multisource video presentation mode of operation, comprising: polling a display device for a video source status, the display device comprising a plurality of video inputs, the plurality of video inputs comprising a wireless video source input; detecting whether more than one video sources are coupled to the display device via the polling, at least one of the more than one video sources comprising a mobile device, the mobile device being coupled to the display device via the wireless video source input; proactively generating a prompt to allow a user to select a multisource video presentation mode of operation when more than one video source is detected; and wherein, 2 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 the prompt for the multiple video source screen presentation mode of operation only presents available inputs to the user, the available inputs corresponding to inputs having video sources coupled thereto as determined by the detecting, and proactively preselects inputs from the available inputs for the display device based upon the multisource video presentation mode of operation selected by the user, the proactive preselecting the inputs allowing the user to access the video devices immediately without accessing an options dialog option of the display device; when an options dialog screen presentation is accessed by the user and when more than one video source is detected, the options dialog screen presentation shows a side by side representation of the available inputs for the display device for a first video input and a second video input, shows an indication of the proactively preselected inputs from the available inputs and shows a visual representation of how the multiple video source screen representation will appear on the display device; and, the options dialog screen presentation interacts with the display device via a Display Data Channel Command Interface (DDC/CI) protocol. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App'x). The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Yoshii Freund Dickens US 2005/0264702 Al US 2013/0083243 Al US 2014/0211095 Al The Rejection Dec. 1, 2005 Apr. 4, 2013 July 31, 2014 (filed Jan. 24, 2014) Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii, Freund, and Dickens. Final Act. 3-12. 3 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 THE CONTENTIONS Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 4---6. Independent claims 7 and 13 are not separately argued (id.) and include similar limitations to claim 1. Appellants argue dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14--17 are allowable due to their dependencies on claims 1, 7, and 13. See id. at 6. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Y oshii teaches many of its limitations, including polling a display device comprising video inputs and proactively generating a prompt. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Y oshii ,r,r 15, 38, 84--85, 134, 144, 158-159, Figs. 16-17 and 21-22). The Examiner finds Y oshii does not explicitly disclose either detecting whether more than one video source is coupled to the display device by the polling or proactively generating a prompt when more than one video source is detected; the Examiner finds Freund in combination with Y oshii teaches these features. Id. at 5---6 ( citing Freund ,r,r 25-27, Figs. 7-8). The Examiner also finds Y oshii teaches an options dialog screen presentation accessed by a user that interacts with the display device. Id. at 9 ( citing Y oshii ,r,r 84--85, Figs. 17, 21-22 ). Although the Examiner acknowledges that Yoshii's interaction between the options dialog screen presentation and the display device does not involve a Display Data Channel Command Interface (DDC/CI) protocol, the Examiner cites Dickens in combination with Y oshii for teaching this feature in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 10 (citing Dickens ,r,r 128-129). Appellants argue that Freund does not teach proactively generating a prompt to allow a user to select a multi source video presentation mode of 4 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 operation when more than one video source is detected in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants also argue Freund does not teach detecting whether more than one video sources are coupled to a display device via polling in claim 1. Id. at 5. Appellants further assert Yoshii does not teach or suggest the recited "when an options dialog screen presentation is accessed by the user and when more than one video source is detected, the options dialog screen presentation shows a side by side representation" limitation in claim 1. Id. Appellants also argue Dickens does not teach that an options dialog screen presentation interacts with the display device via a DDC/CI protocol, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6. MAIN ISSUES UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by determining Y oshii, Freund, and Dickens collectively would have taught or suggested: (A) "detecting whether more than one video sources are coupled to the display device via the polling," (B) "proactively generating a prompt to allow a user to select a multisource video presentation mode of operation when more than one video source is detected," (C) when an options dialog screen presentation is accessed by the user and when more than one video source is detected, the options dialog screen presentation shows a side by side representation of the available inputs for the display device for a first video input and a second video input, shows an indication of the proactively preselected inputs from the available inputs 5 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 and and shows a visual representation of how the multiple video source screen representation will appear on the display device, (D) "the options dialog screen presentation interacts with the display device via a Display Data Channel Command Interface (DDC/CI) protocol"? ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-5 To resolve the question of patentability underÂ§ 103, we begin by construing independent claim 1. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the body of claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, [a] detecting whether more than one video sources are coupled to the display device via the polling, at least one of the more than one video sources comprising a mobile device, the mobile device being coupled to the display device via the wireless video source input; [b] proactively generating a prompt to allow a user to select a multisource video presentation mode of operation when more than one video source is detected; [ c] when an options dialog screen presentation is accessed by the user and when more than one video source is detected, the options dialog screen presentation shows a side by side representation of the available inputs for the display device for a first video input and a second video input, shows an indication of the proactively preselected inputs from the available inputs and shows a visual representation of how the multiple video source screen representation will appear on the display device; and, 6 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 [ d] the options dialog screen presentation interacts with the display device via a Display Data Channel Command Interface (DDC/CI) protocol. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App'x) (emphasis and letter designations added). Steps [b] and [ c] are similar to the conditional limitations discussed in Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, slip op. at 9--10, 14 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential)3 (holding that, in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed by the prior art if the condition precedent is not met); see also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 2 l l l .04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) ( citing Schulhauser). Although the limitations at issue in Schulhauser were rendered conditional by the recitation of "if' (see Schulhauser,No. 2013- 007847, slip op. at 6-8 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016)), we discern no meaningful distinction between the recitations of "if' and "when" in this context. Indeed, one dictionary's definition of "when" is "in the event that: IF." MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1345--46 (conj. def. 2) (10th ed. 1993) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we construe "when" to be synonymous with "if'; therefore, the term "when" in the context of claim 1 renders steps [b] and [ c] conditional. Step [ d] 's recitation of "the options dialog screen presentation" possesses antecedent basis in step [ c] 's term "an options dialog screen presentation." Thus, step [ d] is also rendered conditional based on step [ c] as discussed previously. 3 Available at https ://www. uspto. gov/ sites/ default/files/ documents/Ex%20parte%20 Schulh auser%202016_04_28.pdf); see also 2016 WL 6277792. 7 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 A. Step [a] Appellants argue Freund fails to teach the recited step [a], namely that Freund fails to teach "detecting whether more than one video sources are coupled to the display device via the polling where at least one of the more than one video sources comprising a mobile device, the mobile device being coupled to the display device via the wireless video source input." Appeal Br. 5. This argument is unavailing. We begin by noting the rejection relies on the combination of Y oshii, Freund, and Dickens. See Final Act. 3-10. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, any arguments attacking Y oshii, Freund, and Dickens individually, when the rejection relies on the combination of these references to teach or suggest particular claimed features (see Br. 4---6), are unpersuasive for failing to address the collective teachings of the references. As the Examiner finds, Y oshii teaches polling a display device having video inputs for a video source status. Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Y oshii ,r,r 158-159, Figs. 16-17). The Examiner finds the video inputs ofYoshii's display device do not include a wireless video source input, but turns to Freund to teach this feature. Id. at 7 (citing Freund ,r,r 25-27, Fig. 6). The Examiner further finds Y oshii' s polling is not used to detect whether multiple video sources are coupled to the display device, wherein at least one of the multiple video sources comprising a mobile device coupled to the display device via the wireless video source input, but again turns to Freund 8 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 in combination with Yoshii to teach this feature. Id. at 5-7 (additionally citing Freund Abstract, Figs. 7-8). Freund's circuit 100 for a television comprises inputs 102a-102n and devices 11 Oa-11 On may present a video signal to digital inputs 102a-102n. Freund ,r,r 16-17, Fig. 2. Freund, then, at least suggests detecting whether more than one of devices 11 Oa-11 On ( the claimed "video sources") are coupled to the television (the claimed "display device"). Freund also teaches its television recognizes a smart phone 412 (e.g., a mobile device) wirelessly. Id. ,r 27, noted in Final Act. 6; see Freund ,r,r 25-27, Figs. 6, 8. Freund, then, at least suggests detecting whether more than one video source is coupled to a display device, at least one of the connected video sources comprising a mobile device coupled by a wireless video source input as recited. Although Freund does not state explicitly that it detects whether more than one device (e.g., 1 lOa-1 lOn) is coupled to the television usingpolling as Appellants contend (Appeal Br. 5), the Examiner's findings in this regard are not based on Freund alone, but rather on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. In short, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Yoshii teaches polling a display device having video inputs for a video source status to detect video sources (Final Act. 4--6 (citing Yoshii ,r,r 158-159, Fig. 2)) and the Examiner's conclusion that, when combined with Freund's teachings discussed above, such a combination would have predictably yielded step [a]' s limitations (see id. at 4--6). 9 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 B. Step [b] Even if step [b] were not a conditional limitation, we find no error in the Examiner's findings that the references at least suggest step [b ]. See Final Act. 5---6. Notably, the Examiner cites Yoshii alone or, alternatively, Freund alone for teaching proactively generating a prompt. Compare Final Act. 5 (finding Yoshii alone teaches proactively generating a prompt), with id. at 6 (finding Freund alone teaches proactively generating a prompt). We emphasize the Examiner's alternative reliance on these two separate references, for the teachings of Freund are technically cumulative to the teachings of Y oshii with respect to proactively generating a prompt. The Examiner's findings with respect to Y oshii in this regard (Final Act. 5 (citing Yoshii ,r,r 15, 38, 134, 144, Figs. 16-17)) are undisputed. See Appeal Br. 4 (discussing Freund's alleged individual shortcomings concerning step [b ]). In short, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings concerning Yoshii teaching or suggesting step [b ]. To extent the Examiner's rejection relies on Freund to teach or suggest "more than one video source is detected" feature of step [b] ( and assuming, without agreeing, this is not a conditional limitation) (see Final Act. 4---6), we refer to our previous discussion of step [a] and how Y oshii and Freund teach and suggest this limitation. In any event, concerning Appellants' contention that Freund fails to teach generating a prompt or proactively preselecting inputs as recited because Freund's prompt occurs prior to switching an active signal input (Appeal Br. 4), the Examiner further explains Freund teaches two signals are detected when the user is prompted in Figure 7 ( e.g., 302) and therefore, Freund teaches step [b] 's "more than one video source is detected" 10 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 limitation. See Ans. 3--4 ( citing Freund, Figs. 7-8); see also Freund ,r,r 28-29, Fig. 8 (step 604). The Examiner also indicates Freund's PIP mode shows the two signals as images in response to the prompt (e.g., 302) (e.g., proactively preselects inputs). See Final Act. 7-9 ( citing Freund, Figs. 7-8); Ans. 4 (same); see also Freund ,r,r 28-29, Fig. 8 (step 608). Appellants have not rebutted these explanations sufficiently. See generally Reply Br. C. Step [c] Even if step [ c] were not a conditional limitation, we see no error in the Examiner's findings that the cited references at least suggest step [ c]. See Final Act. 9 (citing Yoshi ,r,r 84--85, Figs. 17, 21-22). Notably, Appellants summarize what Y oshii teaches and then argue Y oshii fails to teach step [ c] by merely repeating step [ c] 's claim language. Appeal Br. 5. This assertion fails to point out specifically what claim features are missing from Yoshii. In any event, Y oshii' s Figure 22 cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 9) shows a "display example of the multi-screen (picture by picture)" (Y oshii ,r,r 85, 135) and is reproduced below: FIG.22 Yoshii's Figure 22 showing a multi-screen (picture by picture) 11 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 Yoshii illustrates in Figure 22 a computer video and television video. Id. ,r,r 85, 135, 158-159, Fig 22. Yoshii's Figure 22 at least suggests "more than one video source is detected" ( e.g., computer and television), "a side by side representation of the" inputs, and "visual representation of how the multiple video source screen representation will appear on the display device" as recited. Yoshii' s Figure 22 further illustrates that the multi- screen (picture by picture) represents the television video with no border and the computer video with browser border. Y oshii, then, at least suggests the multi-screen has "indication of the proactively preselected inputs" from the television and computer video inputs. See also Final Act. 9 (citing Yoshii's Fig. 17, which is described as being displayed "on one comer of the screen" (Y oshii ,r 144) ). Based on the record, Y oshii at least suggests step [ c]. D. Step [d] Even if step [ d] were not a conditional limitation, we see no error in the Examiner's findings that the combination of references at least suggests step [d]. See Final Act. 9-10. Contrary to Appellants' arguments (Appeal Br. 6), the Examiner's rejection is not based on Dickens alone, but rather the collective teachings of Y oshii, Freund, and Dickens-Y oshii for teaching an options dialog screen presentation interacting with a display device and Dickens for teaching a DDC/CI protocol. See Final Act. 9-10 (citing Yoshii ,r,r 84--85, Figs. 21-22; Dickens ,r,r 128-129). In short, combining the options dialog screen presentation with the display device, such as that in Y oshii, with a DDC/CI protocol taught by Dickens would have predictably yielded the claimed features in step [ d]. Appellants' arguments regarding Dickens' individual shortcomings in this regard do not show non- 12 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 obviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-5, which are not separately argued. CLAIMS 7-11 AND 13-17 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 7 (see Final Act. 12), which recites an apparatus, namely a system comprising a processor to execute limitations similar to those in claim 1, including steps [a]-[d]. We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 13 (see id.), which recites a product, namely a non-transitory, computer- readable storage medium embodying computer executable instructions including limitations similar to those in claim 1, including steps [a]-[ d]. The broadest reasonable interpretation of an apparatus claim and a product claim with structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, slip op at 14--15 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016). As such, we construe claims 7 and claim 13 differently from claim 1 because claims 7 and 13 require structure for performing the recited functions should the recited conditions occur, including those recited in steps [b ]-[ d]. However, for the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we conclude the cited references would have rendered claims 7 and 13 obvious, including steps [a]-[ d]. 13 Appeal2018-006598 Application 14/300,471 Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 7, independent claim 13, and dependent claims 8-11 and 14--17, which are not separately argued from claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 14 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Notice of References Cited 14/300,471 2018-006598 Examiner Art Unit 2422 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition pp. 1345-1346 V w X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Page 1 of 1 Classification Classification . . : â€¢ I<<< ~-0 . Â·. " lll,1! 1 1111 â€¢ â€¢ ..â€¢ ><<<< .,,.:,.:-:,.:-:-..,,,,,,-...,-..-..,.,,.,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. .................................... :,.:,.:,.:-x,,,,,,-... ... -...,-...,-..-..,,,,.,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,. ....................................... :,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:.,,,,,,,,,,'-"'''"'"''""""""""""""""""""""" T.ENTH EDITIO_ ,v 11, Ji O WM~,, Ji!!, lÂ©tl, w;,,ts, â€¢mi I Â· 11111!1!1!11!1!1111 I â€¢â€¢ -Â·,Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·ic!II!Ii:::::1,1 "~""Â·Â·Â· ... "'_._1111111111111111111!11111 Â·tf~r::s::.~y <:.f (\J~:frt:~.,;: (:~;J:..:.~tD. Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· {SJ$N ~}-~:77~?~}. 7~(\-2 tJ~.-:h:.:H:}.. ... ,. !S:HN' ~:~-~7T?~'.,7(fl.<~ 0.fr:nh~z.t.\::f~ z;.:._1~,~~d. 1 'E(1t~~d~ t~nsÂ·:.s~::if::Â·Â·Â·Â·l'Jktfr.::~~::.xri~':~, i. ~itn-SÂ·:E:..ri>.~-\\\~~~st~:Â·:-} t;x;. PE~t~J~~-f--Â·t~f, 1.9~}~; i? ~ ,t:- .. !O ~ J.~.~f>~f~{ ! =:~:~:?~~\;~ .. {h::. &~~~:..- '* .,:, Â·'.Â·Â· .d ..... , ,,. 'Â·Â·:~ ~,,r,'>: -~-?'. ~ :}~'}-~ ~:~~.s~s>n~ . .::;~~:-w}k ,.~ ii~h:-:':':'. ;d l!!:!!f ~~tif {l~l!~ 111~1~;~~~}~~~'.f 1~lt~~ =t(/t~~~Â· \.:-1:-Â·:..~Â·:it .. :,;,:_~ â€¢ .:~,;;_;:;':,Â·'-1;,;:;e, ~W&'.Â·Â·~ ~n~Â·~~:..":~~Â·7',, f.Â·,.Â·â€¢>Y': ::.-:Â· '-..tâ€¢:fr (~ ~-;,,) l~:b!k~~,~"r;%.;&lÂ£:.:~;~~~;;~~ li}1!litl~~~~;1t{fl ti~f ;;;~Jq;;~1~~~~:~t:~g:r1:1 \~~:}/h,-~'f,t\:'.. ,.,";Â·.':>Â·\ ,df {~-:-:~. ~.I,~:i : . ...-~t ~:;-.!-:1:~:â€¢:-:â€¢~ n~, .:,r :~>~~k :.::-: \:~~. ~~~xn :;,_ :-\ k.Ht.~~:~:- F ~:..~hi.;;. \:.~h .:\,~ .. ,h~~~ \~.\ ~xh \~\ ~\:--:: ~.;i\. t:~~Â·~-p:- ~":":~â€¢: ';S;~:.~: ~x,~ \,::~:~. -.:~~~â€¢:â€¢ \.-~\ ~~~~ \~:\ ~~~:-.:$Â· ':~\ ~~'} :;,_~":: M~ :.r, Â·â€¢>.:,:Â· "}'k'{' \~~ i::,~s ':~f-. ~~). "\:~': t*~Â· ~-~.;, ::=,~"$ \t~:-. ~~5~ '-t .. t;.~ t-\:~ ~}:\ h~$~ ,~\\ ~~::,:,--~ \y": :::~c:~ \::h"': ~:*t~~ \i .. ~, \ -..'!:\ ~~=:~ ~~~~ ~~ .. ~\ ~:-x: G~i:.1'~:~ ~...-~ P:Â·::.,::m:;~xisfr~:-:. :;:~:-;,:-:~:..:.::) ,Â·~, .... :, â€¢,:: .. ~Â·:- .......... ,, "'Â·~~r:-~Â· dx;::.:;:. -:Â·.::-,:,:,:~,:Â· :::i':f:m .<, ::,::;~;: )>"~~~x=~ :-: ;Â· ~ Â·~~-<:; t : ~::\'..~~:{::-..: < ;:-;>;.m~X :.:~': ._,,~~.:~r-.::Sr,:-:Â·N ~- .... ,.,,,, 1 ~,,Â·J%:>"r ... Â·h::: \h>::Â·~::Â· .... "::~:~ ... 'â€¢.: y:- .... ~Â·Â·Â·. ;, ::Â·: ... ":Â·;.,.Â·.,::Â·.~tÂ· :.: :::~:;~~(t,f}'.\{Jl, ,;: â€¢:-:-'~::::.:~rx:.,~:-f , ' ., ... ':~,-.. '-'' Â·~,: .. ~ ,:';:.Â·. 'Â·Â·''Â· :- ,",â€¢ :,.; >~: )~\::\.)~~~ :;)/1\\.:t ~::-(:~~-:-:-,: ~~'.t;;~;:xÂ·:-:,Â·{":-":-:: Â·: .. \.,::. -..'%::~-.. ~.;~.t~i~;;~: ,;it)~\i\ . ' " .,,.Â·:~.;-;.:--;;,,:..., : .. :,.~:,. :;~~ \ '':. ,â€¢', . .'Â· .. , .. >, ............ . ~ ;g~--:Â·:::K::::-..:Â·:::~ ~~ Â·>: .. ~Â· ~~. ' ,, .. 'Â· :._ ." ., .,, ......... , Â·:Â·. '. . ..,x ,â€¢ Â·'::-::-.:~~'Â· ... ,;..::-:-:Â·,~ ~ ) ).,:.) :: :Â·~-Â·-Â· Â·_-:"::~Â· :::~;~~:r~=i~\t:::~ ~i\ .::Â·~)\' .: 3 >::: 5 : ~-::, ~:-::Â·:.,:;:.:Â· ~-â€¢:::::(â€¢.:; .. \ Â·~", ,. ,x., , -~,, , ..... ~,Â·:Â· ~ ....... :: Â·~~~~~~Â·~~~~~:-~ .. -~~;<~\;~;'.;; .. \:-~;.,~~\/;Â·: :~ ,-.Â·~~Â·-.. :::,;-r-: ~-;Â·~:~YÂ· .â€¢ i .â€¢ ?0 ':Â·:_\â€¢:;>(-. \ ... ,~: 'Â·Â·Â· V,Â· \_, ~:-~ :\: ~ : ~ .... ~~~'.:(:;::::> ~-r~~;Â· :;-.Â·:::.t~; ... ,;--~Â·Â· Â·~\:::~~=~~'. .. ~Â·~uÂ·.;~,::~~~~~ :::::._ >;~~: Â·-..~'. '