13762074 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

Ex Parte Hauck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 1, 2019

13762074 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/762,074 02/07/2013 Jerrold Von Hauck 47743 7590 02/05/2019 DICKINSON WRIGHT RLLP Attn: IP Docketing P.O. BOX569 Cupertino, CA 95015 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 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. Pl 0271 US l/l 8230US. l 4196 EXAMINER GRACIA, GARY S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2019 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): S VDocketing@dickinsonwright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JERROLD VON HAUCK, LI LI, and STEPHAN V. SCHELL Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 15, 19-22, and 24--27, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 6, 12, 14, 16-18, and 23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention authenticates user equipment to a wireless network using an access control client (ACC). Spec. 3:26-28. In one embodiment, a wireless mobile device is issued an ACC uniquely associated with a shared secret. Spec. 6:13-14. Generally, a shared secret is data that is used to verify two parties to one another in a secure communication. Spec. 13 :20-21. The shared secret can be a password, a passphrase, a big number, an array of randomly chosen bytes, or a cryptographic hash. Spec. 13:21-24. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: by an activation service network apparatus: receiving an access control client (ACC) request that originated at a mobile device, wherein the ACC request includes a request to change an ACC activation state associated with an ACC, and wherein the request comprises a first shared secret and a first state value; performing a verification, wherein a successful verification requires both i) matching the first state value to an expected ACC activation state value and ii) matching the first shared secret to an expected ACC shared secret; when the verification is unsuccessful: executing a fraud detection protocol to detect possible unauthorized use of the ACC; and when the verification is successful: generating a new shared secret that corresponds to a changed ACC activation state associated with the ACC. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison (US 2010/0285834 Al; Nov. 11, 2 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 2010), DeAtley (US 2008/0318550 Al; Dec. 25, 2008), and Shenfield et al. (US 2008/0118059 Al; May 22, 2008). Non-Final Act. 6-11. 2 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, DeAtley, Shenfield, and Smeets (US 2009/0239503 Al; Sept. 24, 2009). Non-Final Act. 11-22. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 13, 15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, Jones (US 8,295,812 Bl; Oct. 23, 2012), Smeets, and Shenfield. Non-Final Act. 22-30. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, DeAtley, Shenfield, and Minogue et al. (US 2005/0090731 Al; Apr. 28, 2005). Non-Final Act. 30-31. The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, DeAtley, Shenfield, and Tysowski (US 2008/0170690 Al; July 17, 2008). Non-Final Act. 31-33. The Examiner rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, DeAtley, Shenfield, and Choi (US 2006/0154647 Al; July 13, 2006). Non-Final Act. 34--35. The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Hutchison, DeAtley, Shenfield, and Burman et al. (US 2008/0102956 Al; May 1, 2008). Non-Final Act. 35-36. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Non-Final Rejection mailed July 3, 2017 ("Non-Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 3, 2018 ("Br."); and (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 21, 2018. 3 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUTCHISON, DEATLEY, AND SHENFIELD The Examiner finds that Hutchison discloses many recited elements of independent claim 1 including, among other things, an "activation service network apparatus" (remote activation server) that receives an "access control client (ACC) request" (encrypted message) originating at a mobile device. See Non-Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5, 11. The Examiner also finds that Hutchison's encrypted message includes a request comprising a "first shared secret" (hash value). See Non-Final Act.7; Ans. 13, 16. The Examiner also finds that Hutchison performs a verification such that a successful verification includes matching the hash value to an expected ACC shared secret. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner also cites DeAtley for teaching that when the verification is unsuccessful, a fraud detection protocol to detect possible unauthorized use of the ACC is executed. Id. at 9. Shenfield is also cited for teaching that when the verification is successful, generating a new shared secret that corresponds to a changed ACC activation state associated with the ACC. Id. at 10. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Hutchison is misplaced because, among other things, Hutchison's hash is not a shared secret. Br. 19-21. According to Appellants, a shared secret is a value first known at a first and second party before being used for security purposes. Id. at 11. Appellants further argue Hutchison's remote activation server is not an activation service network apparatus as claimed because Hutchison's remote activation server is separate from a carrier. Id. at 17-18. 4 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 ISSUES UnderÂ§ 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that Hutchison, DeAtley, and Shenfield collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) an activation service network apparatus that (A) receives an ACC request originating at a mobile device, the ACC request (i) including a request to change an ACC activation state associated with an ACC and (ii) comprising a first shared secret; and (B) matches the first shared secret to an expected ACC shared secret, as recited in claim 1; and (2) a mobile device that (A) receives activation status information associated with a validity of the request that is determined based at least in part on the secret information and (B) receives from the activation service network apparatus, new secret information associated with the ACC when the activation status information indicates the request to be valid, as recited in claim 11 ("the two disputed receiving steps of claim 11 ")? ANALYSIS We construe a disputed limitation of claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, a "shared secret." The meaning of the term may be determined by reviewing a variety of sources including the claims themselves, dictionaries, and treatises, and the written description, the drawings, and the prosecution history. See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We first tum to Appellants' Specification, for it is the single best guide in ascertaining the meaning of the term. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane); see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (recognizing that 5 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 "the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis," and that "[u]sually, it is dispositive"). Although we recognize that we must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims (see SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), we must nevertheless give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes the invention in the Specification (see In re Smith Int'!, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Appellants' Specification explains that a shared secret is, generally, data used to verify two parties to one another in a secure communication. Spec. 13 :20-21. Our emphasis on the permissive term "generally" underscores that this data is the usual form of a shared secret, but not the only such form. Accord id. at 20:1-8 (disclosing that "[this] description is in no way meant to be limiting, but rather should be taken as illustrative of the general principles of the disclosure"). Appellants' Specification further provides examples of what the shared secret can be-a password, a big number, an array of randomly chosen bytes, and a cryptographic hash. Id. at 13:21-24. Although this description informs our construction of the term "shared secret," it is not limiting. We find unavailing Appellants' contention that the Specification defines the term "shared secret" as requiring synchronizing at a transmitter and receiver before use. Br. 13 (citing Spec. 13:5---6; 15:24--25; 15:30-16:1; 24:4--5). 3 Appellants' Specification explains devices accessing a network maintain a "synchronization of state ( e.g. through a shared secret) with [an] 3 We note page 24 of the Specification does not exist. See generally Spec. 6 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 activation service." Spec. 13:5---6 (emphasis added). In a section titled "Example Operation," Appellants' Specification explains an embodiment illustrated in Figure 4 includes a shared secret synchronized between an activation service 404 and user equipment 408A. Id. at 15:24--25; Fig. 4. Our emphases in Appellants' cited sections of the Specification underscore that synchronizing a shared secret with an activation service and user equipment is merely exemplary. Prior art references can often help to determine the meaning of terms to those skilled in the art. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584). We find unavailing Appellants' contention that Shenfield and A. MENEZES ET AL., HANDBOOK OF APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY (1997) ("Menezes") supports that the term "shared secret," as a term of art, is a value first known at a first and second party before being used for security purposes. Br. 11-12 (citing Menezes 4, 12- 13, 35; Shenfield ,r,r 11, 67, 71-74); see also id. at 32-39 (Evidence App'x) (disclosing Menezes 3--4, 11-13, 33, 338-39); present Appl'n 13/762,074, Response filed Dec. 9, 2016 (disclosing Menezes 1-26, 33-34, 338-39, 352, 362-63). Appellants' cited sections of Menezes do not recite the term "shared secret." Although Shenfield explicitly discloses the term "shared secret," Shenfield alone does not show a widely accepted definition of "shared secret" as a term of art understood by ordinarily skilled artisans. To determine the ordinary meaning of commonly understood words, it is appropriate to cite a dictionary definition. See Agfa Corp. v. Crea Products, Inc., 451 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The term "secret" is defined as "something ... shared only confidentially with a few," MERRIAM- 7 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 1055 (n. def. lb) (10th ed. 1993); and the term "share" is defined as "to ... use ... with others," id. at 1077 (vt. def. 2a). Given this understanding of a shared secret with its plain meaning in the art in light of the associated exemplary shared secrets in the Specification, the term "shared secret" in the context of claim 1, then, involves something used only confidentially with a few. With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Hutchison's hash value at least suggesting the recited first shared secret. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Hutchison ,r,r 57, 60); Ans. 13-17 (additionally citing Hutchison ,r,r 50, 52-53, 58). Hutchison teaches a wireless device's service activation involving a remote activation server. Hutchison ,r,r 49-51; Fig. 3. If Hutchison's wireless device detects that the activation of its components requires reporting, the wireless device transmits an encrypted message to the server. Id. ,r,r 49-50. Hutchison's wireless device first hashes a message using a hash value when using signature authentication. Id. ,r 57. Hutchison's wireless device then encrypts the hashed message using a private key. Id. ,r 58. Hutchison's server then decrypts the encrypted hashed message, and the hash value is checked to authenticate the message and wireless device. Id. Contrary to Appellants' arguments (Br. 19-23), Hutchison at least suggests the hash value is used only confidentially between the wireless device and the remote activation server ( the claimed "shared secret") during the service activation process. That Hutchison's hash value is similar to cryptographic hashes----one of the examples of a shared secret in page 13, lines 20-25 of the Specification- only further bolsters the Examiner's finding that Hutchison's hash value constitutes a first shared secret. 8 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on Hutchison for at least suggesting receiving an ACC request that comprises the hash value and matching the hash value to an expected ACC shared secret. Non-Final Act. 6-8 (citing Hutchison ,r,r 49-50, 58, 72, 74; Fig. 8). Notably, Hutchison's remote activation server receives the wireless device's encrypted hashed message that comprises the hash value. Hutchison's server checks the hash to authenticate the message and wireless device by comparing a signature to the hash. Hutchison ,r 5 8. Hutchison, then, at least suggests receiving an encrypted hashed message (the claimed "ACC request") that comprises the hash value and matching the hash value to a signature (the claimed "expected ACC shared secret"). Appellants' argument that Hutchison's hash calculation does not involve a synchronization aspect (Br. 20) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim under our above construction. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on Hutchison for at least suggesting a remote activation server (the claimed "activation service network apparatus") that receives the encrypted hashed message including a request to change an ACC activation state associated with an ACC. Non-Final Act. 6-7 (citing Hutchison ,r,r 49-50). Appellants' contention that Hutchison's remote activation server (1) does not perform "an important carrier operation (service network activation)" (Br. 17); (2) is separate from Hutchison's "network ('carrier' or 'service provider')" (id. at 18); and (3) does not receive an ACC request because a carrier controls an ACC activation state (id.) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. That is, the claim does not recite a "carrier," let alone an alleged operation of the carrier such as a service network activation. Even 9 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 assuming the claim recites a "carrier," which it does not, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Hutchison's remote activation capture process-involving the remote activation server (see Hutchison ,r 51, 57-58}-is performed in conjunction with a carrier. See Ans. 10-12 (citing Hutchison ,r 3 6). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 3, 4, and 26 not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUTCHISON, JONES, SMEETS, AND SHENFIELD We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 11. Non-Final Act. 22-29. Appellants' arguments regarding Hutchison's alleged shortcomings pertaining to the two disputed receiving steps of claim 11 (Br. 24) are unpersuasive, for they are not germane to the reason why Hutchison was cited (see Non-Final Act. 22-23). Nor is Appellants' assertion that the combination involves Hutchison's remote activation server receiving an activation request from Jones' device (Br. 24) germane to the reason why Jones was cited, namely, for receiving information associated with a validity of a transmitted request (see Non- Final Act. 24--25). We also find availing Appellants' argument that Hutchison's remote activation server sending secret information associated with an ACC to Jones' device is "completely foreign" to the purpose of Hutchison's remote activation server. First, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not require an activation service network apparatus sending secret information to a mobile device. The claim requires 10 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 transmitting a request from a mobile device to the activation service network apparatus. Second, Appellants do not adequately explain why Hutchison's remote activation server sending secret information to Jones' device allegedly renders Hutchison unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Hutchison's remote activation server sends an authenticated activation receipt to a wireless device upon receiving an encrypted message from the wireless device. Hutchison ,r 51. Hutchison, then, at least suggests the authenticated activation receipt is secret. Appellants' argument that the claimed mobile device would not receive new secret information associated with the ACC from Hutchison's remote activation service because Hutchison's remote activation service is separate from a carrier is unavailing for reasons discussed previously concerning claim 1. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, and claims 13, 15, 19, and 20 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5, 7-10, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27. Non-Final Act. 11-22, 30-36. Because these rejections were not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in those rejections for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION UnderÂ§ 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 15, 19-22, and 24--27. 11 Appeal2018-006597 Application 13/762,074 DECISION4 The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 15, 19-22, and 24--27 is affirmed. 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)(l ). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, (1) when a verification is unsuccessful, executing a fraud detection protocol to detect possible unauthorized use of an ACC; and (2) when the verification is successful, generating a new shared secret that corresponds to a changed ACC activation state associated with the ACC. Indeed, these are the only two possibilities of a verification: either the verification is successful or it is not. We leave to the Examiner to consider whether claim 1 's two "when" clauses are conditional limitations similar to the "if' limitation in Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser). If the Examiner determines the two "when" clauses are conditional limitations, we note that only one condition need be satisfied to meet these claims-not both. We also leave to the Examiner to consider whether claim 11 's two "when" clauses are conditional limitations as in Schulhauser. 12 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination 13/762,074 Jerrold Von Hauck et al. Notice of References Cited Examiner Art Unit 2491 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification 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 Classification 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, 1055, 1077 (10th ed. 1993). 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. . . : 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$N ~}-~:77~?~}. 7~(\-2 tJ~.-:h:.:H:}.. ... ,. !S:HN' ~:~-~7T?~'.,7(fl.<~ 0.fr:nh~z.t.\::f~ z;.:._1~,~~d. 1 'E(1t~~d~ t~nsÂ·:.s~::if::Â·Â·Â·Â·l'Jktfr.::~~::.xri~':~, i. ~itn-SÂ·:E:..ri>.~-\\\~~~st~:Â·:-} t;x;. PE~t~J~~-f--Â·t~f, 1.9~}~; i? ~ ,t:- .. !O ~ J.~.~f>~f~{ ! ~:-:;x.;,,;:Â·~"r:f \\:{~. t.::.::::r\ ,:;~'$.} r.~ ~ :-:,:'\_'l-.;-Â·â€¢Â·v.:S"., {.Â· ?'~,~~,~~~; Â·w;~'('''''''Â· ~ . . : . ~'.::'?'::x::~~-' ':' :' .~.-.â€¢.:Â·~.:Â·~Â·'Â·;~:;,:~~'..:_,::}: ;;~;'.fa~~:\~'.t;;~;:~~:;i;,~;t\,'.~~i~\~2;''~ ,. Â·Â·Â·.Â·,,, : .,,,,Â·:r-,,~,~~Â·,Â·â€¢,;Â·Â·Â·,:>,Â·Â·~} :t~~~I,'.~~:t~~:;~t :~:::,:~::Lt' ,::,t\;::::,~~i,l,;,~~~;,,,;,,,;; ,\:"f .;,;:"''Â· .x).Â·~~- :;~:., Â·>: .. : \. .;;_;,~Â·.s:xÂ·.; Â·:Â·5 ::;-.. ~'.'. _;_'{'s.' ;,.;~.--â€¢:Â·~'\Â·}~ 'Â· Â·.:,.":< >: :Â· :r,:~:. Â·:::._: ,,,!'..;' ! : V ~{ Â·.:,. ~t::EE;l:&:Â£:'.7::1;,::::::E:~z::~1:::~;1t::~2~r I~~::::~::~\~:::~~E\Â·s::,~:~:~;::~~:~~~~:~:,::;:~~:~~:f ~~-:~_r?~,l:;F .,:;:~f ~~;:,:~~~,::[;:1:':';~~ :;_.,"''' Â·, Â·,, .. ,~~'Â·Â· ., Â·,~::=~c~~,,~: ,:,~~,: .~:~~~'.~;,;;::~:: ~Â·~:~.~:(~ \ Â· Â·.:~>,/ .... \~: ~ >:.;.:. ~' Â·~' / ~ ';:~.~<,/~ ,: .. : .. ~~m~Â·,'. > ,; '~ .. :.~X~;.,; '~~~.\t {~ ~<~ : ~!{:: ~ !Â·Â»~; Â·}~~m~~:-- \~:~\~:Â·~_,.:; :>s:::Â· .''\Â· ..... ~;.Â·:,~":~Â·~Â· .. ~ Â·Â·>~~ ~ '\>;,~; '.:-. .';~ Â·Â·:;:v:~ .. ::. Â· ~:::~=-~~:~::~Â»~Â·-: .. Â».-.Â· .:-.~ ';,;:', :,, ..::?Â·~ Â·.:::_Â·~~-~Â·Â·~ ~~Â·--,.:Â·t.:::~.:.,_: Â· .. :Â·'_.,,\ .. _ .. ,.~:.-.. 1Â· Filf 1~1 .. :\,. : .. F. >Â· Â·,_,. .. '"Â·': ... Â·:,. , ~ ''.: ;",;, 1 .. 1 ... ::â€¢-~:Â·:.:_ .. _Â·~.Â·:Â·-:,.):'.~, .i.Â·.f.~.,Â·,_.:_1_.::.:_:;.:_'.Â·~-,Â·Â·i.:,~ .:j, .. lr,:,.,., Â»:';I'''Â·' 'Â·::'.::;Â·':_''.:~::,f': .. Â£':'.'.>:. L::,,.,,"- ~: . Â·"Â·Â·: .. __ , ,.,,,~, ,, â€¢. ;.,,â€¢.,s;.,. r, ' "'' "'~\,,.,,. ,,, ,,,, .. 'iiiÂ§~~~~ Â· ..... â€¢, :,:,;'.<,.,Â· -..\.',{. \' ,;,..._ ''. Â·~::::t~:,: ... ~~, ~; ........ :~~~~::~::~'.;>~~~.;:::'.~;;~::~:::~~" '.~~~~;~~~~~~:;~~:Â·: Â·~~~: ~:~~\::, .. ~%~; ~ ~~~~~\r~- ,~~i}t~~:i:-~!'~~~~:''.~,~~:; :7~' f (;;;;::; ~~;?. \:J;:;t:;~.~::-~t~.;.~~t:)i;~~\~;~f tr~i:; };!:::n>.~Â·;t!:~~Â· ~~~~:; ~={~~f~Â· {~ ":~Â·~;~,:~Â·~;~~?~~{~~~,';;:Â· ;,! ~~~:;~;~,;,,~---,;mmrnl , : /:',;; : ,, ,,,,,.,,,,i:,,,: z~:::~\f~~t~?~t -~Â· ;:~ :,~Â·~~-. ~~;~~-~.~~.:.:;~~':,~~Â·\;* Â·>}:,':':: .. Â·vrm0.~ 'mÂ·Â· Â·::Â·. ~~~Â·'. >')Â· \;;;;:;?;?,~;!;:~~r(, '.:ii, + ,',' .. :,oi~:dt-:~\~i~\:;?:/'}\l:l\: )~\/''i ~{::,~\.~':-Â·tS~~Â· (:/~:~::-::)Â·;,..\'\ f !;~;~â€¢-::~,:'~~Â·"Â·~Â· T::~Â·t~: ~ ~~~:?';:: ~~-~\'.:~:~::~ .. ~ ~~~Â·'.:Â·Â· â€¢.~: â€¢â€¢ ,:{( â€¢.. ;Â·:::,~.:. ,':-.. ';:\\ â€¢â€¢ ,Â· .. :Â·~ â€¢. :: Â· .'::}Â·' â€¢. Â· _..,' >: ,:Â· .''rÂ·Â°:-C. ::~: ~-:s.,--,,:': ., ~Â· ,:,,. ,,,,,;:;-...:,:..v. ~;;~;~-~;;~~~::~:, :-..~~', '3.. :~~.~~~~;;,fj:.. .. ::. Â·:Â·;:Â·:-::. :';' :,â€¢.;,~-::''.\';,;::~Â·.:,:, ~Â·:Â·:,. Â·::-:Â·:::-:':,:.x::. :Â·:-:Â· Xo:,B,:'>'.:~.:-.::~::;.;'., i~Â·:;Â·'\Â·Â·Â·~;;~t~~;~?\;1<(::~Â·~\:;;f) :\: . -::nn:.{ ~ .:,;~_;:':.::.:~~\:~ -::\ ~~r,)â€¢xr '::::.': ~!:.!: \:{:.. :.:,;:~:: \:.:i.\ .::t::.;;:;~-:,.. ::,,:-:-:.,: \X~::.7;, ;:~,:..{ ~:::~r", .:.':~;:: \~.\ ::::-~ ':;}\ {-:-t:-~Â· \f\ ~~'.:,. \i~: h$: \:~ b:;:. \~: };::'.t} ".:::?~ 8.1:)-:>::;~ \Â¢\ :~,, :....: .. , ~!:>:'-!-' ~/.~Â·;,, ~,~}} \~~:~: ~~~~:, :..;_t,\ iÂ·~r \.;.~\ :~.)'::~~ '::1': :::m:: \y:: 7-.;:~ \:::~::.. :Â·~~h:::. \.;:; .. ~;' â€¢:_ ;_~: .. ,::::. ,...:: .. Â·:.~Â· .... Â· ... , v:::~Â· (>~::.:.Â·..: :,; .. frÂ·~'s:w"": .. Â·>Â·\ .. 'Â·