<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hmmm. On a lark, I popped question 1 into Google's free Gemini AI. Copied in below is Gemini's response:<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail-response-content gmail-ng-tns-c2473773285-18"><span class="gmail-model-response-text gmail-ng-star-inserted" id="gmail-message-content-id-r_288418bf5be2a834" style="height:auto"><div class="gmail-markdown gmail-markdown-main-panel gmail-tutor-markdown-rendering enable-updated-hr-color" id="gmail-model-response-message-contentr_288418bf5be2a834" dir="ltr"><p>You're facing a common and frustrating issue in patent prosecution. The RO/106 and RO/107 forms from WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) indicate that there's a defect in your international application, specifically regarding the drawings, and that correcting it will result in a change to your international filing date (IFD). This is a critical concern, especially since your one-year priority deadline has passed.</p><p>Here's how you should respond and argue to keep your original filing date, focusing on the principle that all subject matter was present from the start:</p><p><b>Understanding the Problem and the Forms:</b></p><ul><li><p><b>RO/106 (Invitation to Correct Defects in the International Application):</b> This form is generally used for formal defects, including issues with drawings (e.g., non-compliance with physical requirements, missing numbers, or incorrect presentation).</p></li><li><p><b>RO/107 (Notification Concerning a Later Submitted Part of the International Application):</b> This form comes into play when the Receiving Office believes that a part of your application (like the corrected drawings) constitutes "new" matter that wasn't present on the original filing date, thus necessitating a new filing date for that "new" matter.</p></li></ul><p>The core of the problem is that the Receiving Office views your misnumbered figures as a fundamental defect that impacts what was <i>originally disclosed</i>. Their default position is that a correction to the drawings, even just renumbering, is akin to adding new content if it's not clearly supported by the initial filing.</p><p><b>Your Argument Strategy: "Incorporation by Reference" and "Clerical Error"</b></p><p>Your best approach is to argue that the renumbering is a <b>clerical error</b> and that the corrected drawings contain <b>no new subject matter</b> but are merely a <i>clarification</i> or <i>correction of presentation</i> of subject matter that was <b>fully disclosed and supported</b> in the original application. You'll lean heavily on the concept of "incorporation by reference" if applicable, and if not, on the clear disclosure of the content itself.</p><p>Here's how to structure your response:</p><ol start="1"><li><p><b>Acknowledge and Respond to the Forms:</b></p><ul><li><p>Reply to both RO/106 and RO/107 within the given deadline.</p></li><li><p>Clearly reference your international application number and the specific forms you are responding to.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>State Your Position Clearly:</b></p><ul><li><p>Begin by stating that you respectfully disagree with the Receiving Office's preliminary finding that a correction to the drawings would result in a change of the international filing date.</p></li><li><p>Affirm that all the subject matter shown and described in the corrected drawings was fully contained and unambiguously disclosed in the international application as originally filed.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>Explain the Nature of the Defect (Clerical Error):</b></p><ul><li><p>Describe the specific nature of the misnumbering. For example: "The figures in the originally filed application were inadvertently misnumbered due to a clerical error during preparation. Figure 'X' was incorrectly labeled as Figure 'Y', and so on."</p></li><li><p>Emphasize that this was a <i>numbering error</i>, not a situation where figures were missing or new figures are being introduced.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>Demonstrate Support in the Original Application (Crucial):</b></p><ul><li><p>This is the most important part. You need to show that even with the misnumbering, the <i>content</i> of each figure was clearly identifiable and described in the original application's description.</p></li><li><p><b>Directly correlate:</b> For each corrected figure number, explain what it <i>was</i> called in the original filing (if it was referenced, even incorrectly) and what it <i>is now</i> called.</p></li><li><p><b>Provide specific examples:</b> Quote passages from your original description that refer to or describe the features shown in the misnumbered figures. For instance: "Although Figure 10 was incorrectly labeled as Figure 12 in the original submission, the description on page 5, paragraph 3 clearly refers to 'the exploded view of the assembly shown in Figure 10,' which corresponds precisely to the subject matter of the renumbered Figure 10."</p></li><li><p><b>Highlight consistency:</b> Argue that a person skilled in the art, reading the original application, would have been able to understand the figures and their relationship to the description despite the numbering errors.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>Address "Incorporation by Reference" (If applicable):</b></p><ul><li><p>If you had originally intended to incorporate any element by reference (e.g., from an earlier priority application), and the misnumbering somehow relates to that, confirm that the element or part was incorporated by reference under PCT Rule 4.18.</p></li><li><p>You would typically need to furnish a written notice confirming this and demonstrate that the element was completely contained in the earlier application. However, for simple figure renumbering, this is less likely to be the primary argument unless the figures themselves were literally incorporated by reference.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>Request Maintenance of the Original Filing Date:</b></p><ul><li><p>Conclude by reiterating that since no new subject matter is being introduced, and the original application clearly supported all the elements of the corrected drawings, the international filing date should remain the original date.</p></li><li><p>Request that the Receiving Office reconsider its preliminary finding and maintain your original international filing date.</p></li></ul></li><li><p><b>Submit the Corrected Drawings:</b></p><ul><li><p>You <b>must</b> submit the corrected drawings as replacement sheets. Follow the instructions on RO/106 carefully for submitting replacement sheets:</p><ul><li><p>Each replacement sheet must be clearly marked "REPLACEMENT SHEET" and the number of the sheet (e.g., "Sheet 3/10").</p></li><li><p>Include a letter accompanying the replacement sheets that draws attention to the differences between the replaced sheets and the replacement sheets (i.e., specifying the renumbering).</p></li></ul></li></ul></li></ol><p><b>Important Considerations:</b></p><ul><li><p><b>Time Limits:</b> Adhere strictly to the deadlines provided in the RO/106 and RO/107 forms. Missing these deadlines can lead to the application being considered withdrawn.</p></li><li><p><b>Clarity and Detail:</b> Be extremely clear, concise, and detailed in your arguments. The more precisely you can cross-reference the original application to support your claim of no new matter, the stronger your case.</p></li><li><p><b>No New Matter:</b> The key is <i>absolutely no new matter</i>. If the corrected drawings introduce anything that wasn't clearly derivable from the original filing, you will likely lose the original filing date for those parts.</p></li><li><p><b>Professional Language:</b> Maintain a professional and respectful tone in your communication with the Receiving Office.</p></li><li><p><b>Consult IP Counsel:</b> Given the critical nature of the filing date and priority, it is highly advisable to <b>consult with a qualified patent attorney or agent</b> experienced in PCT applications. <span class="gmail-citation-3 gmail-citation-end-3">They can review your specific application and the notices, help draft the strongest possible response, and navigate the intricacies of WIPO procedures.<sup class="gmail-superscript"></sup></span> They might also be aware of specific WIPO or national phase office practices regarding such defects.<span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"></span></span></p><div class="gmail-source-inline-chip-container gmail-ng-star-inserted"><button class="gmail-button gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span role="img" class="gmail-mat-icon gmail-notranslate gmail-symbol gmail-gds-icon-s gmail-google-symbols gmail-mat-ligature-font gmail-mat-icon-no-color" aria-hidden="true"></span></button></div><p></p></li></ul><p><span class="gmail-citation-2 gmail-citation-end-2">While it feels like a minor issue, misnumbered figures, if not properly rectified, can have significant consequences for your patent rights.<sup class="gmail-superscript"></sup></span> A strong, well-reasoned argument focused on the original disclosure of the subject matter is your best chance to preserve your filing and priority dates.<span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"></span></span></p><div class="gmail-source-inline-chip-container gmail-ng-star-inserted"><button class="gmail-button gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span role="img" class="gmail-mat-icon gmail-notranslate gmail-symbol gmail-gds-icon-s gmail-google-symbols gmail-mat-ligature-font gmail-mat-icon-no-color" aria-hidden="true"></span></button></div><p></p></div></span><div class="gmail-response-footer gmail-gap gmail-complete"><span class="gmail-sources-list gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"><button class="gmail-mdc-button gmail-mat-mdc-button-base gmail-sources-sidebar-button gmail-mdc-button--outlined gmail-mat-mdc-outlined-button gmail-mat-unthemed gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span class="gmail-mat-mdc-button-persistent-ripple gmail-mdc-button__ripple"></span><span role="img" class="gmail-mat-icon gmail-notranslate gmail-sources-sidebar-button-icon gmail-google-symbols gmail-mat-ligature-font gmail-mat-icon-no-color" aria-hidden="true"></span><span class="gmail-mdc-button__label"> Sources </span><span class="gmail-mat-focus-indicator"></span><span class="gmail-mat-mdc-button-touch-target"></span><span class="gmail-mat-ripple gmail-mat-mdc-button-ripple"></span></button></span></span></span></div></div><span class="gmail-ng-star-inserted"></span><span class="gmail-contextual-discovery-response-promotion gmail-ng-tns-c334570441-22 gmail-ng-star-inserted"><div class="gmail-contextual-discovery-response-promotion gmail-ng-tns-c334570441-22 gmail-ng-trigger gmail-ng-trigger-promotionEnter gmail-ng-star-inserted"><span role="img" class="gmail-mat-icon gmail-notranslate gmail-gds-icon-l gmail-contextual-discovery-response-promotion-content-icon gmail-ng-tns-c334570441-22 gmail-google-symbols gmail-mat-ligature-font gmail-mat-icon-no-color gmail-ng-star-inserted" aria-hidden="true"></span><div class="gmail-gds-body-l gmail-contextual-discovery-response-promotion-content gmail-ng-tns-c334570441-22 gmail-ng-star-inserted"><div class="gmail-contextual-discovery-response-promotion-content-text gmail-ng-tns-c334570441-22"></div></div></div></span><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 9:30\u202fAM Timothy Snowden via Pct <<a href="mailto:pct@oppedahl-lists.com">pct@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"><u></u>
<div>
<div>
<p><strong><em>CONFIDENTIAL. PRIVILEGED.</em></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>On a lark, I put Katherine's question, and then a follow-up
question into IronCrow's LLM and selected the special
Interrogate option that is pre-trained on "PCT Treaty,
Regulations and Administrative Instructions". I'm putting the
actual answer here because I thought the rest of the listserv
might be interested in the state of patent practice specific
research tools. What I did not include is the verbatim cited
sources that are attached to the end of each answer
automatically so that you can verify the LLM's 'reasoning'. BTW
-- I am not related to IronCrow except as a user and a periodic
offerer of rambling thoughts, grumblings, and feature requests
that Will is gracious enough to consider helpful feedback.</p>
<p>I felt like Response 1 was maybe technically accurate but not
as 'to the point'. My follow-up request I felt like provided
some nice citations that I might find helpful to copy and paste
into a response, for example (after validating the citation!).</p>
<p>----</p>
<p><font size="5">QUESTION 1 (slightly edited): I filed an
application in which the figures were mistakenly misnumbered
and now I\u2019ve received RO/106 and RO/107 notices stating that
my filing date will be corrected to the date on which I file
the corrected drawings. This is such a minor thing, I\u2019m
hoping there\u2019s a way to keep the priority date (the 1-year
deadline has passed) and, hopefully, the filing date. How
should I respond and argue that I have the right to keep my
filing date since all the subject matter was present, there
was just some numbering issues.</font></p>
<p><font size="5">RESPONSE 1:</font></p>
<h2>Understanding the Issue</h2>
<p>You've received RO/106 and RO/107 notices indicating that your
international filing date will be corrected to the date when you
submit corrected drawings due to misnumbered figures. This is
concerning since your priority period (1-year deadline) has
already passed.</p>
<h2>Legal Framework</h2>
<p>The key provision that applies to your situation is <strong>Article
14(2)</strong> of the PCT, which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"If the international application refers to drawings which,
in fact, are not included in that application, the receiving
Office shall notify the applicant accordingly and he may
furnish them within the prescribed time limit and, if he does,
the international filing date shall be the date on which the
drawings are received by the receiving Office. Otherwise, any
reference to the said drawings shall be considered
non-existent."</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Important Distinction to Make</h2>
<p>The critical point to argue is that your situation does not
involve <strong>missing drawings</strong> but rather <strong>misnumbered
drawings</strong> that were actually present in the
application. This is a significant distinction.</p>
<h2>Recommended Response Strategy</h2>
<ol>
<li>
<p><strong>Clarify that the drawings were present</strong>:
Emphasize that all drawings were physically included in the
application at filing - they were merely misnumbered. This
is not a case where drawings were referenced but not
included.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Argue for rectification of obvious mistake</strong>:
Request rectification under <strong>Rule 91</strong> of the
PCT, which allows for correction of obvious mistakes.
According to Rule 91.1(c):</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>"The competent authority shall authorize the rectification
under this Rule of a mistake if, and only if, it is obvious to
the competent authority that, as at the applicable date under
paragraph (f), something else was intended than what appears
in the document concerned and that nothing else could have
been intended than the proposed rectification."</p>
</blockquote>
<ol>
<li>
<p><strong>Emphasize that this is a minor defect</strong>: The
misnumbering of figures that were actually present should be
treated as a correctable defect under Article 14(1)(a)(v)
and Rule 26.3, which deals with physical requirements,
rather than a case of missing drawings under Article 14(2).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>Request maintenance of the original filing date</strong>:
Since the drawings were physically present at filing (just
misnumbered), argue that the requirements of Article 11(1)
were met at the time of filing, particularly Article
11(1)(iii)(d) which requires "a part which on the face of it
appears to be a description."</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Procedural Steps</h2>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Submit your response within the time limit specified in the
notices.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Include a clear explanation that distinguishes between
misnumbered drawings (your case) and missing drawings
(Article 14(2) case).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Submit the corrected drawings with proper numbering.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Request that the correction be treated as a rectification
of an obvious mistake under Rule 91 or as a correction of a
physical requirement defect under Rule 26.3.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Cite Section 325 of the Administrative Instructions, which
outlines the procedure for corrections of defects under Rule
26.4 and rectifications of obvious mistakes under Rule 91.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The key to your argument is establishing that this is not a
case of missing drawings (which would justify a change in filing
date under Article 14(2)) but rather a case of misnumbered
drawings that were physically present at filing (which should be
correctable without affecting the filing date).</p>
<p>If the receiving Office maintains its position, you may need to
consider further procedural options, but this initial response
should present a strong case for maintaining your original
filing date.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><font size="5">QUESTION 2: What are the key limitations on the
office's authority to change the filing date? Please use
quotes from the appropriate statutes, rules, or guidelines.
Would pointing to a provisional that referred to the subject
matter of the figures in the proper order help?</font></p>
<p><font size="5">RESPONSE 2:</font></p>
<h2>1. Requirements for Establishing Filing Date</h2>
<p>Article 11(1) establishes the basic requirements for according
an international filing date:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The receiving Office shall accord as the international
filing date the date of receipt of the international
application, provided that that Office has found that, at the
time of receipt:<br>
(i) the applicant does not obviously lack, for reasons of
residence or nationality, the right to file an international
application with the receiving Office,<br>
(ii) the international application is in the prescribed
language,<br>
(iii) the international application contains at least the
following elements:<br>
(a) an indication that it is intended as an international
application,<br>
(b) the designation of at least one Contracting State,<br>
(c) the name of the applicant, as prescribed,<br>
(d) a part which on the face of it appears to be a
description,<br>
(e) a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or
claims."</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>2. Missing Drawings vs. Defects in Drawings</h2>
<p>Article 14(2) specifically addresses missing drawings:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"If the international application refers to drawings which,
in fact, are not included in that application, the receiving
Office shall notify the applicant accordingly and he may
furnish them within the prescribed time limit and, if he does,
the international filing date shall be the date on which the
drawings are received by the receiving Office. Otherwise, any
reference to the said drawings shall be considered
non-existent."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This provision applies only when drawings are completely
missing, not when they are present but contain defects such as
misnumbering.</p>
<h2>3. Physical Requirements and Correctable Defects</h2>
<p>Rule 26.3 limits the authority to reject applications for
physical defects:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The receiving Office shall check:<br>
(i) the international application for compliance with the
physical requirements referred to in Rule 11 only to the
extent that compliance therewith is necessary for the purpose
of reasonably uniform international publication;"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rule 26.5 further limits the consequences of physical defects:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The receiving Office shall decide whether the applicant has
submitted the correction within the applicable time limit
under Rule 26.2, and, if the correction has been submitted
within that time limit, whether the international application
so corrected is or is not to be considered withdrawn, provided
that no international application shall be considered
withdrawn for lack of compliance with the physical
requirements referred to in Rule 11 if it complies with those
requirements to the extent necessary for the purpose of
reasonably uniform international publication."</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>4. Rectification of Obvious Mistakes</h2>
<p>Rule 91.1(c) provides for rectification of obvious mistakes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"The competent authority shall authorize the rectification
under this Rule of a mistake if, and only if, it is obvious to
the competent authority that, as at the applicable date under
paragraph (f), something else was intended than what appears
in the document concerned and that nothing else could have
been intended than the proposed rectification."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Rule 91.3(c)(i) states that when rectification is authorized:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"Where the rectification of an obvious mistake has been
authorized under Rule 91.1, it shall be effective:<br>
(i) in the case of a mistake in the international application
as filed, from the international filing date;"</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Would Pointing to a Provisional Help?</h2>
<p>Pointing to a provisional application that referred to the
subject matter of the figures in the proper order could
potentially help, but not directly under the PCT framework. The
key arguments should focus on:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The misnumbered figures represent an "obvious mistake"
under Rule 91.1 that should be rectifiable without changing
the filing date.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The drawings were actually present in the application (just
misnumbered), so Article 14(2) regarding missing drawings
should not apply.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Misnumbering of figures is at most a physical defect under
Rule 26.3, which should not result in the application being
considered withdrawn if it meets the minimum requirements
for reasonably uniform international publication.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>While the provisional application might demonstrate the
applicant's intent regarding the correct numbering, the stronger
argument is that the misnumbering is an obvious mistake that
should be rectifiable without affecting the filing date, since
all the drawings were physically present at filing.</p>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Example
of Citations attached to end of each answer:</div>
<div><img src="cid:ii_197b1cbc6c64e2f2a251" alt="" width="1258" height="253"></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 6/27/2025 6:59 AM, Katherine Koenig
via Pct wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Would anyone
be available today to talk with me briefly about the best
way to respond to two notices I received from WIPO?
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Basically,
the figures were mistakenly misnumbered and now I\u2019ve
received RO/106 and RO/107 notices stating that my filing
date will be corrected to the date on which I file the
corrected drawings. This is such a minor thing, I\u2019m hoping
there\u2019s a way to keep the priority date (the 1-year deadline
has passed) and, hopefully, the filing date. I\u2019ve called
and emailed WIPO and the officer who signed the forms, and
haven\u2019t managed to reach anyone. I\u2019d like to file the
response today, if possible. Thank you! <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Best
regards,<span><u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Katherine<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Dr.
Katherine Koenig<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Registered
Patent Attorney<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Koenig IP
Works, PLLC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">2208
Mariner Dr.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33316<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Corbel,sans-serif;color:black">(954)
903-1699<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Corbel,sans-serif;color:black"><a href="mailto:katherine@koenigipworks.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:blue">katherine@koenigipworks.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Corbel,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"><img border="0" width="154" height="41" style="width: 1.6041in; height: 0.427in;" id="m_-2959728118012438145Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:ii_197b1cbc6c64cff312"></span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:black">Targeted
Intellectual Property Strategy</span></i><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif;color:black">The
information contained in this communication, including any
attachments, is privileged and confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If </span></i><i><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif">you
are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
sender that you have received this communication in error
and then destroy all paper and electronic copies. Thank
you.</span></i><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Candara,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
<ul style="display:none">
</ul>
</div>
-- <br>
Pct mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pct@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Pct@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
Click here to unsubscribe: <a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/pct_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>