Ex Parte Schmitt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10461638 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANCIMAR C. SCHMITT
and HICHEM M'SAAD
____________

Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants claim a method for depositing a low dielectric constant
film comprising delivering a gas mixture and applying RF power to the gas
mixture at conditions sufficient to deposit a film on a substrate surface, the
film having a dielectric constant less than 3.2 and compressive stress.
Representative independent claims 1 and 13, as presented in the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, read as follows:
1. A method for depositing a low dielectric constant film, comprising:

delivering a gas mixture consisting essentially of:

a cyclic organosiloxane;

a linear hydrocarbon compound having at least one unsaturated
carbon-carbon bond to a substrate surface; and

an inert gas; and

applying RF power to the gas mixture at conditions sufficient to
deposit a film on the substrate surface, the film having a dielectric constant
less than 3.2, and wherein the film has compressive stress.

13. A method for depositing a low dielectric constant film,
comprising:

providing a gas mixture comprising:

a cyclic organosiloxane;

a linear hydrocarbon compound having at least one unsaturated
carbon-carbon bond; and

one or more oxidizing gases to a substrate surface; and

2
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

applying RF power to the gas mixture at conditions sufficient to
deposit a film on the substrate surface, the film having a dielectric constant
less than 3.2 and compressive stress.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness:
Grill ('009) US 6,147,009 Nov. 14, 2000
Li US 6,358,839 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
Grill ('443) US 6,437,443 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
Grill ('398) US 6,541,398 B2 Apr. 1, 2003
Nakayama US 2003/0089045 A1 May 15, 2003
Bao US 2003/0203652 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Lukas US 2004/0175957 A1 Sep. 9, 2004
Matsuki US 6,881,683 B2 Apr. 19, 2005
Gates ('930) US 2005/0276930 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
Gates ('468) US 7,030,468 B2 Apr. 18, 2006
Hyodo US 7,064,088 B2 Jun. 20, 2006

Hawley, "The Condensed Chemical Dictionary," Tenth Edition, pp. 699, 972
& 998 (1981).

Wolf, "Silicon Processing for the VLSI Era," pp. 114-117 (1986).

All appealed claims are rejected based on a common rationale under
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite and non-enabled according to the second
and first paragraphs respectively.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grill '443 (which incorporates by
reference Grill '009) in view of Li and further in view of Wolf.
Claims 4 and 17 are correspondingly rejected over these references
and further in view of Grill '398.
3
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

Claims 12 and 23 are correspondingly rejected over Grill '443, Li, and
Wolf and further in view of Lukas, Hawley, Gates '468, and Nakayama.1
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Hyodo.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Matsuki.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Li and further in
view of Wolf.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over, Gates '930.
Claims 7, 20, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gates '930 (as applied above to claims 1, 3-6, 8-19,
and 21-23) optionally in view of Matsuki.
Claims 13-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over, Bao.

1 Appellants characterize this rejection of claims 12 and 23 as a new ground
of rejection in view of the Examiner's reliance on the Hawley, Gates '468,
and Nakayama references (Reply Br. 3, 5). However, Appellants have not
provided the appeal record with any objection to the alleged new ground of
rejection (e.g., via an appropriate petition). Instead, the rejection is merely
contested on the merits of the applied reference evidence (id.). Under these
circumstances and because the issue of whether an Examiner has
inappropriately made a new ground of rejection is petitionable rather than
appealable, we (like Appellants) will assess this rejection based on the
merits thereof.
4
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

Claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bao (as applied above to claims 13-15 and 17-21)
optionally in view of Grill '443 or Matsuki.

THE § 112 REJECTIONS

ISSUE
Have Appellants established error in the Examiner's determination
that all appealed claims are indefinite and non-enabled because these claims
do not require that a plasma be created by the RF power applying step?
FINDINGS OF FACT
It is undisputed on this record that Appellants' originally filed
disclosure teaches applying RF power to deposit the claimed film on a
substrate with no further teaching that the applied RF power creates a
plasma. Moreover, the Examiner acknowledges that "one of ordinary skill
would realize that it is obvious that RF power can be supplied to provide
heating instead of a plasma" (Ans. 5). The Examiner further acknowledges
that "RF heating for thermal CVD processes can be considered a
conventional generic deposition technique" (Ans. 23). Nevertheless, the
Examiner determines that "the disclosure as originally provided does not
enable one to determine what the sufficient conditions are for depositing the
claimed film, if for example the RF power was used only to heat, as is
within the scope of the claims as written" (Ans. 5). For this same reason,
the Examiner also determines that the appealed claims are indefinite (Ans. 7-
8).

5
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Breadth is not indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693 (CCPA
1971).
Even if an enabling disclosure is not commensurate in scope with the
subject matter encompassed by the claims, that fact alone does not render the
claims indefinite. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 909 (CCPA 1970).
In order to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of non-
enablement, an Examiner must provide a reasonable explanation why the
scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by an
applicant's disclosure. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4) that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of indefiniteness and
non-enablement.
The Examiner's basis for each of the § 112 rejections is that the
appealed claims do not require the creation of a plasma during the RF power
applying step (Ans. 4-8). However, the fact that the appealed claims are
broad in this respect does not render them indefinite since breadth is not
indefiniteness. Even if the claims were non-enabled for failure to require
plasma creation, this fact alone does not render the claims indefinite.
In any event, on this record, the Examiner has not carried the
Examiner's burden of reasonably explaining why the scope of protection
provided by the appealed claims is not adequately enabled by Appellants'
disclosure. In this regard, the Examiner acknowledges that RF power can be
used to provide heating instead of plasma creation (Ans. ¶ bridging pages 4-
5). Nevertheless, the Examiner asserts that Appellants' originally filed
6
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

disclosure "does not enable one to determine what the specific conditions are
for depositing the claimed film, if for example the RF power was used only
to heat, as is within the scope of the claims as written" (id.; emphasis
deleted). The deficiency of this assertion is that the Examiner has not
reasonably explained why one with ordinary skill in this art would not be
able to determine without undue experimentation the conditions needed to
achieve deposition of the film required by the appealed claims. The need for
such an explanation is highlighted by the Examiner's admission that "RF
heating for thermal CVD processes can be considered a conventional generic
deposition technique" (Ans. 23). On this record, the Examiner has provided
no reasonable basis for believing that an artisan would not be able to use this
conventional deposition technique for depositing a film having the properties
required by the appealed claims.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
For the above stated reasons, the Appellants have established that the
Examiner erred in determining that the appealed claims are indefinite and
non-enabled merely because they do not require plasma creation during the
RF power applying step.
Therefore, we cannot sustain either of the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1 and 3-30 under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

THE § 102 AND § 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON THE PRIMARY
REFERENCES TO HYODO, GATES '930, AND BAO

ISSUE
Have Appellants established error in the Examiner's determination
that the references applied in the above-noted rejections teach (expressly or
7
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

inherently) or would have suggested applying RF power to deposit a film
having a dielectric constant less than 3.2 and compressive stress?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Concerning the § 102 rejection over the Hyodo patent, it is undisputed
that Hyodo expressly teaches methods of depositing a film having a
dielectric constant less than 3.2 (col. 12, ll. 37-46) and for depositing a film
having compressive stress (col. 13, ll. 23-29). However, the Hyodo patent
contains no express teaching of any method which deposits a film having
both compressive stress and a dielectric constant less than 3.2.
As for the § 102/§103 rejection over Gates '930, this reference teaches
depositing a film having a dielectric constant less than 3.2 and an elastic
modulus of about 5 or greater (Abstract). The Examiner finds that the films
of Gates '930 having an elastic modulus of about 5 or greater would
inherently encompass films having compressive stress (Ans. ¶ bridging
20-21). Alternatively, the Examiner finds that the disclosure of Gates '930,
which incorporates by reference the disclosure of Grill '009, would have
suggested optimizing stress values thereby resulting in films having
compressive stress (id.).
Regarding the § 102/§103 rejections over the Bao reference, Bao
teaches depositing a film having a dielectric constant less than 3.2 and a
higher resistance to crack initiation and propagation. (Abstract; ¶ [0023]).
Although the reference contains no express disclosure that the film has
compressive stress, the Examiner finds that Bao's films inherently would
have compressive stress due to their crack resistance (Ans. 22).
Alternatively, the Examiner concludes that, "given the teachings of Bao . . .
8
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

to produce crack resistant films, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to optimize the stress in [Bao's] film via known
means in order to result in the type of stress, i.e., compressive, which would
be consistent with the taught crack resistance" (id.).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
For a § 102 rejection to be proper, the applied reference must clearly
and unequivocally disclose the claimed subject matter or direct those skilled
in the art to the claimed subject matter without any need for picking,
choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each
other by the teachings of the applied reference. Such picking and choosing
may be entirely proper in a § 103 obviousness rejection, but it has no place
in a § 102 anticipation rejection. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587-88 (CCPA
1972).
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that
the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities
or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given
set of circumstances is not sufficient. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
9
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with
approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Co., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
ANALYSIS
In making the § 102 rejection over Hyodo, the Examiner has
improperly combined low dielectric constant disclosure with disclosure
concerning compressive stress which is, on this record, unrelated to a
dielectric constant less than 3.2 as required by the appealed claims. While
combining these seemingly unrelated disclosures may be proper in a § 103
obviousness rejection, it has no place in a § 102 anticipation rejection.
In rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8-19, and 21-23 over Gates '930, the
Examiner has incorrectly found that films having the elastic modulus values
of Gates '930 inherently would have a compressive stress characteristic.
Aside from being apparently subjective, this finding is contradicted by the
Examiner's express concession that "the examiner has never said that all
values of elastic modulus ≥5 are necessarily compressive stress as
previously implied by [A]ppellant, but that such values necessarily
encompass or include the claimed generic compressive stress, particularly
for the higher values of this taught open ended range" (Ans. 20). Contrary to
this concession, not just some but all films having elastic modulus values in
the entire range disclosed by Gates '930 must necessarily possess the
characteristic of compressive stress in order to satisfy the principles of
inherency. As for the Examiner's conclusion that the Gates '930 disclosure
would have suggested providing films with compressive stress, this
obviousness determination is based on mere conclusory statements rather
than articulated reasoning with rational underpinning in the form of
objective evidence.
10
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

In rejecting claims 7, 20, and 24-30 over Gates '930 optionally in view
of Matsuki, the Examiner does not rely on Matsuki for supplying any of the
deficiencies discussed above. Therefore, this rejection is improper for the
same reasons that the § 102 and § 103 rejections over Gates '930 alone are
improper.
In rejecting claims 3-15 and 17-21 as anticipated by Bao, the
Examiner has found that the films of this reference inherently would have
compressive stress due to their crack resistance characteristic. This finding,
however, is not supported by any extrinsic evidence and therefore must be
regarded as inappropriate speculation. Similarly, the alternative rejection of
these claims as obvious over Bao is based on mere conclusory statements
rather than the rational underpinning of objective evidence to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.
In rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 22 under § 103 over Bao
optionally in view of Grill '443 or Matsuki, the Examiner does not rely on
these last two mentioned references to supply the above discussed
deficiencies of Bao (Ans. ¶ bridging 22-23). For this reason, the rejection
under consideration is improper for the same reasons that the § 102 and
§ 103 rejections of claims 13-15 and 17-21 over Bao are improper.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
For the above stated reasons, Appellants have shown error in the
Examiner's determinations of anticipation and obviousness in the rejections
under review.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain:
the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 as anticipated by
Hyodo;
11
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

the § 102/§103 rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8-19, and 21-23 as
anticipated by or obvious over Gates '930;
the § 103 rejection of claims 7, 20, and 24-30 as unpatentable over
Gates '930 optionally in view of Matsuki;
the § 102/§103 rejections of claims 13-15 and 17-21 as anticipated by
or obvious over Bao; and
the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 22 as unpatentable over
Bao optionally in view of Grill '443 or Matsuki.

THE § 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON GRILL '443 AS A PRIMARY
REFERENCE

ISSUE
Have Appellants established error in the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been prima facie obvious for one with ordinary skill in this art to
modify the method of Grill '443 so that the film produced thereby has
compressive stress?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Grill '443 discloses a method of applying RF power to deposit film
having a low dielectric constant of less than 3.2 as required by the rejected
claims (Abstract, col. 2, ll. 36-38, and col. 6, ll. 24-59).
While Grill '443 contains no disclosure that the low dielectric films
thereof should have compressive stress, Li evinces that low dielectric films
which have high tensile stress are problematic (¶ bridging col. 1-2).
Further, Wolf teaches that nearly all films are in a state of internal
stress, that highly stressed films are generally undesirable, and that films
which are in tensile stress may crack if their elastic limits are exceeded
12
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

(¶ bridging 114-115). Wolf also teaches that the intrinsic stress in a film
depends on thickness, deposition rate, deposition temperature, ambient
pressure, method of film preparation, and type of substrate used, among
other parameters (115 first full ¶).
Finally, Grill '443 incorporates by reference the teachings of Serial
No. 09/107,567 (col. 1, ll. 58-67) which has since matured into the patent to
Grill '009. The Grill '009 patent teaches a method of producing low
dielectric constant films which exhibit very low crack propagation and
which have low internal stresses (Abstract, col. 1, ll. 56-59, col. 2, ll. 22-25).
The Examiner finds that the low crack propagation teachings of Grill '009 in
combination with Wolf's teachings that cracks are propagated by tensile
stress suggest that compressive stress is present; alternatively, the Examiner
concludes that these teachings would have motivated an artisan to provide
desirable compressive stress in the films of Grill '443 in order to obtain the
combination of low crack propagation and low dielectric constant as desired
by Grill '443 (col. 1, ll. 58-67). (Ans. 12, first full para., para. bridging 12-
13.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the collective teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
When there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite
number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has
good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation
13
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

but of ordinary skill and common sense. In this instance, the fact that a
combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we observe that Appellants do not separately argue with any
reasonable specificity the rejections of the dependent claims including the
separate rejections of dependent claims 4 and 17 and of dependent claims 12
and 23 (Br. 13-17). Accordingly, we will focus on independent claims 1 and
13 in assessing the merits of the § 103 rejections under review which rely
upon Grill '443 as a primary reference.
Appellants argue that the applied references to Grill '443, Li, and
Wolf "do not teach or suggest depositing a low dielectric constant film
having compressive stress as asserted by the Examiner" (App. Br. 13).
According to Appellants, "[o]btaining a film having both compressive stress
and a dielectric constant less than 3.2 by controlling the RF power would
require more than routine experimentation" (id.). On the record before us,
Appellants' position lacks convincing merit.
We agree with the Examiner that the collective teachings of the
applied prior art would have suggested modifying the method of Grill '443
so as to achieve a film having not only a low dielectric constant of 3.2 or less
but also low internal stress in the form of compressive stress. In this way,
tensile stress and the problems associated therewith (e.g., crack propagation)
would be avoided. Furthermore, the teachings of Wolf evince that it would
have been obvious for an artisan to select and manipulate the parameters
necessary to achieve the desired film characteristic of compressive stress.
14
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

In this latter regard, we are mindful of Appellants' previously quoted
statement that "[o]btaining a film having both compressive stress and a
dielectric constant less than 3.2 by controlling the RF power would require
more than routine experimentation" (App. Br. 13). However, this statement
lacks persuasive merit for two reasons. First, the statement is not supported
by objective evidence and therefore constitutes mere attorney argument with
no apparent basis in fact. Second, contrary to the implication in this
statement, independent claims 1 and 13 do not require that RF power be the
sole parameter responsible for achieving the recited compressive stress.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have failed to establish error in the Examiner's conclusion
that it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of Grill
'443 in such a way as to provide the film produced thereby with the
characteristic of compressive stress.
As a consequence, we sustain the following rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-22 as being
unpatentable over Grill '443 in view of Li and further in view of Wolf;
the rejection of claims 4 and 17 as being unpatentable over Grill '443,
Li, Wolf, and Grill '398; and
the rejection of claims 12 and 23 as being unpatentable over Grill
'443, Li, Wolf, Lukas, Hawley, Gates '468, and Nakayama.

15
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

THE § 102 AND § 103 REJECTIONS BASED ON MATSUKI
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown evidentiary inadequacy in the extrinsic
evidence relied upon by the Examiner to establish that the film of Matsuki's
sole example has compressive stress?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The method of Matsuki's example deposits film having a dielectric
constant less than 3.2 (col. 11, l. 64--col. 12, l. 24).
The Examiner finds that the parameters of Matsuki's example closely
correspond to the parameters of Hyodo's example 3 which deposits film
having compressive stress (Ans. ¶ bridging 17-18; Hyodo, cols. 15-16).
Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that the example of
Matsuki not only expressly describes a film having a dielectric constant less
than 3.2 but also inherently describes the film as having compressive stress
(Ans., id.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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 Brothers, Inc., 814 F.2d at 631.
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that
the descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d at 745.
ANALYSIS
We again observe that Appellants do not separately argue with any
reasonably specificity the rejections of the dependent claims. Accordingly,
16
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

the dependent claims under rejection will stand or fall with independent
claims 1 and 13.
Concerning the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 over
Matsuki, Appellants argue that "the examples [sic, sole example] given in
Matsuki . . . , which the Examiner asserts are substantially the same as those
given in Hyodo . . . , also do not disclose a film having both compressive
stress and a dielectric constant of less than 3.2" (App. Br. 19). However,
this argument fails to even acknowledge much less rebut the inherency
theory on which this rejection is based. More specifically, this argument
identifies no evidentiary inadequacy in the extrinsic evidence (i.e., example
3 of Hyodo in comparison with the sole example of Matsuki) which the
Examiner relies upon in support of the inherency theory.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown no evidentiary inadequacy in the extrinsic
evidence relied upon by the Examiner to establish that the example of
Matsuki deposits a film which inherently has compressive stress.
For this reason, we sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and
13-22 as being anticipated by Matsuki.
We also sustain the § 103 rejection of corresponding claims 1, 3, 5-11,
13-16, and 18-22 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Li and Wolf
on the grounds that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982).

17
Appeal 2008-4294
Application 10/461,638

SUMMARY
We have sustained the § 103 rejections based on Grill '443 and other
references of claims 1 and 3-23, the § 102 rejection based on Matsuki of
claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22, and the § 103 rejection based on Matsuki and
other references of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-22.
We have not sustained any of the other rejections advanced by the
Examiner in this appeal including the single prior art rejection of claims 24-
30.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cam

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP---APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BLVD., SUITE 1500
HOUSTON TX 77056
18