<div dir="ltr"><div>Krista >
The examiner said Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 are \u201cdirected to
related products.\u201d He said Groups 2 and 3 are \u201crelated as combination
and subcombination.\u201d <br></div><div><br></div><div>"Related." That gives you several more bases to traverse. The highlighted one below (from 808.02) is one I use a lot -- I look in the Manual of Classification, and almost always there's a class-subclass that fits both inventions (and one or both of the examiner's proposed classes is bogus). Once they're classified together, and the examiner admits they're "related," voila, no restriction.</div><div><br></div><div>Another thing I do is traverse, and if the groups are otherwise equally-good choices, I elect the group with the more-bogus class-subclass designation. First Action shows up, and whattaya know, the examiner searched the class-subclass of the other. Then I come back with a request for rejoinder under MPEP 808.02. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Do you have a copy of "the big email" I send every so often?<br></div><div><br></div><div>
<h1 class="gmail-page-title" id="gmail-d0e104138">806.05 Related Inventions [R-08.2012]</h1>
<p id="gmail-d0e104142">Where two or more related inventions are claimed, the principal
question to be determined in connection with a requirement to restrict or a rejection on
the ground of double patenting is whether or not the inventions as claimed are distinct.
If they are distinct, restriction may be proper. If they are not distinct, restriction
is never proper. If nondistinct inventions are claimed in separate applications or
patents, double patenting must be held, except where the additional applications were
filed consonant with a requirement to restrict.
</p>
<p id="gmail-d0e104145">Various pairs of related inventions are noted in the following
sections. In applications claiming inventions in different statutory categories, only
one-way distinctness is generally needed to support a restriction requirement. See
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104138">MPEP §
806.05(c)</a></b> (combination and subcombination) and
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104138">§
806.05(j)</a></b> (related products or related processes) for examples
of when a two-way test is required for distinctness. Related inventions in the same
statutory class are considered mutually exclusive, or not overlapping in scope, if a
first invention would not infringe a second invention, and the second invention would
not infringe the first invention <br></p><p><br></p><p>
</p><h1 class="gmail-page-title" id="gmail-d0e105372">806.05(j) Related Products; Related Processes [R-07.2022]</h1>
<p id="gmail-d0e105376">To support a requirement for restriction between two or more related
product inventions, or between two or more related process inventions, both two-way
distinctness and reasons for insisting on restriction are necessary, i.e., separate
classification, status in the art, or field of search. See <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s808.html#d0e105935">MPEP § 808.02</a></b>. See
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104168">MPEP §
806.05(c)</a></b> for an explanation of the requirements to
establish two-way distinctness as it applies to inventions in a
combination/subcombination relationship. For other related product inventions, or
related process inventions, the inventions are distinct if
</p>
<ul style="list-style-type:none"><li id="gmail-d0e105386" class="gmail-nobull">(A) the inventions <i>as claimed</i> do not overlap in
scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive (i.e., a claim to the final product does
not read on the intermediate, and <i>vice versa</i>);
</li><li id="gmail-d0e105393" class="gmail-nobull">(B) the inventions <i>as claimed</i> are not obvious
variants; and
</li><li id="gmail-d0e105400" class="gmail-nobull">(C) the inventions <i>as claimed</i> are either not
capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of
operation, function, or effect. See <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s802.html#d0e97928">MPEP § 802.01</a></b>.
</li></ul>
<p id="gmail-d0e105410">The burden is on the examiner to provide an example to support the
determination that the inventions are distinct, but the example need not be
documented. If applicant either proves or provides convincing evidence that the
example suggested by the examiner is not workable, the burden is on the examiner to
suggest another viable example or withdraw the restriction requirement.
</p>
<p id="gmail-d0e105413">As an example, an intermediate product and a final product can be
shown to be distinct inventions if the intermediate and final products are mutually
exclusive inventions (not overlapping in scope) that are not obvious variants, and
the intermediate product as claimed is useful to make something other than the final
product as claimed. Typically, the intermediate loses its identity in the final
product. See also <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104544">MPEP
§ 806.05(d)</a></b> for restricting between subcombinations
disclosed as usable together. See <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s809.html#d0e105981">MPEP § 809</a></b> - <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s809.html#d0e106269">§ 809.03</a></b> if a
generic claim or claim linking multiple products or multiple processes is
present.
</p>
<p id="gmail-d0e105425">Form paragraph <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#fp8.14.01">8.14.01</a></b> may be used to restrict
between related products or related processes; form paragraph
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#fp8.14">8.14</a></b> may be used in intermediate-final product
restriction requirements; form paragraph <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#fp8.16">8.16</a></b> may be used to restrict between
subcombinations.
</p>
</div><div><br></div><div>
<h1 class="gmail-page-title" id="gmail-d0e105935">808.02 Establishing Burden [R-07.2022]</h1>
<p id="gmail-d0e105939">Where, as disclosed in the application, the several inventions claimed
are related, and such related inventions are not patentably distinct as claimed,
restriction under <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e303040">35
U.S.C. 121</a></b> is never proper (<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104138">MPEP § 806.05</a></b>). If
applicant voluntarily files claims to such related inventions in different applications,
double patenting may be held.
</p>
<p id="gmail-d0e105948">Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct
under the criteria of <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e104168">MPEP § 806.05(c)</a></b> - <b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s806.html#d0e105649">§ 806.06</a></b>, the examiner, in order to
establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a
serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required.
In order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show by appropriate
explanation one of the following:
</p>
<ul style="list-style-type:none"><li id="gmail-d0e105960" class="gmail-nobull">(A) <b id="gmail-">Separate classification thereof</b>: This shows that each invention has
attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and
also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate
classification.
</li><li id="gmail-d0e105966" class="gmail-nobull">(B) <b id="gmail-">A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together</b>:
Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have
formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a
recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art
may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and
also of a separate field of search.
</li><li id="gmail-d0e105972" class="gmail-nobull">(C) <b id="gmail-">A different field of search</b>: Where it is necessary to search for one
of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art
pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses
or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field
of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated
different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter
covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of
search.
</li></ul>
<p id="gmail-d0e105978"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Where, however, the classification is the same and the field of search
is the same and there is no clear indication of separate future classification and field
of search, no reasons exist for dividing among independent or related inventions.</span>
</p>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:54\u202fPM Krista Jacobsen via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Hi Randall,<div><br></div><div>Group 1 is \u201cdrawn to a product\u201d in a first classification.</div><div>Group 2 is \u201cdrawn to a product\u201d in a second classification.</div><div>Group 3 is \u201cdrawn to a product\u201d in a third classification.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. </div><div><br></div><div>The examiner said Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 1 and 3 are \u201cdirected to related products.\u201d He said Groups 2 and 3 are \u201crelated as combination and subcombination.\u201d</div><div><br></div><div>Is that a proper species election? Ordinarily when I get a species election, it relates to the drawings, and I have to figure out which claims I can keep. I am also used to seeing language about generic claims, and there is none of that here. </div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Krista<br><div><div><div><br>------------------------------------------<br>Krista S. Jacobsen<br>Attorney and Counselor at Law<br>Jacobsen IP Law<br><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a><br>T: 408.455.5539<br><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a><br><br>NOTICE: This communication may include privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the sender and delete this communication without copying or distributing.</div><div><br></div><br>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 16, 2024, at 4:42\u202fPM, Randall Svihla <<a href="mailto:rsvihla@nsiplaw.com" target="_blank">rsvihla@nsiplaw.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi, Krista<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Are claims 1 and 11 independent claims?<span>
</span>If so, the restriction requirement may be proper, and claim 11 is generic to Groups 2 and 3.<span>
</span>If you elect Group 2 or Group 3, the Examiner has to consider claim 11.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">How did the Examiner say the claims are related?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Randall S. Svihla<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">NSIP Law<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Washington, D.C.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><span> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Krista Jacobsen via Patentpractice<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, December 16, 2024 6:27 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Krista Jacobsen <<a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> [Patentpractice] Effect of traversing a partially-defective restriction requirement<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Hi all,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">If you traverse a restriction requirement that is only partially defective, does the examiner have to withdraw the entire requirement, or can he withdraw just the part that is
defective?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Assume it's a statutory restriction requirement, and the examiner requires restriction to:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Group 1: Claims 1-10<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Group 2: Claims 11-13, 15, 19, and 20<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Group 3: Claims 11, 14-16, 17, and 18<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Clearly, Groups 2 and 3 are neither independent nor distinct. Easiest traverse ever.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">But assume that it would not be totally unreasonable if the examiner had required restriction between claims 1-10 and claims 11-20.
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">What happens when the traverse based on the FUBARity of Groups 2 and 3 is successful? Does the examiner have to withdraw the entire restriction requirement, or just the part that
is defective? In other words, can he withdraw the requirement as to Groups 2 and 3 but still require restriction between Group 1 (claims 1-10) and Group 2' (claims 11-20)?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I cannot find the answer in the MPEP or in David Boundy's excellent paper, but for some reason I have a vague sense that he gets one shot at restriction, and if he blows it, and
the applicant successfully traverses, he has to withdraw the entire thing.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts and (maybe?) experiences.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Krista<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">------------------------------------------<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Krista S. Jacobsen<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Attorney and Counselor at Law<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Jacobsen IP Law<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com" target="_blank">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">T: 408.455.5539<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com/" target="_blank">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10pt"><font size="2"><b><span><span><span><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><font size="2"><b><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <img alt="Cambridge Technology Law LLC" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/keynectup/PROFILE/9b92f0cd-ecec-44c8-8932-60e8dc63709f/thumbnail.jpg?1455027242552" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; outline: 0px;" height="96" border="0" width="96"><br></a></b></font></p><font size="2"><b>
</b><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property
strategists</span></a></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p><b>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:700">David Boundy</span></a></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span></span></span></p></b></font><p></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><a href="mailto:dboundy@cambridgetechlaw.com" target="_blank">DBoundy@cambridgetechlaw.com</a> / <a href="tel:%2B1%206464729737" value="+16464729737" target="_blank">+1 646.472.9737</a></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><span style="font-weight:700">Cambridge Technology Law LLC</span></span><br>686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge MA 02139<br><a href="http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com" target="_blank">http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy</a><br></span></p>mailing address<div>PO Box 590638<br></div><div>Newton MA 02459<br></div></div></div><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""><br>This communication is
a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.<span> </span>Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.<span> </span>Any legal, business or tax information
contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not
intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute
for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse
consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise
the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly
delete it.</span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>