Paper: Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Transcription

1 Paper: Entered: May 22, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION and MICROSOFT MOBILE INC., Petitioner, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., Patent Owner. Case IPR Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R

2 I. INTRODUCTION Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, Petitioner ) filed a Petition (Paper 2, Pet. ) requesting inter partes review of claims 1 7 of U.S. Patent No. RE43,564 E (Ex. 1001, the 564 Patent ). Koninklijke Philips N.V. ( Patent Owner ) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, Prelim. Resp. ). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 314 and 37 C.F.R. 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless... there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. For the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review. II. BACKGROUND A. Related Proceedings The parties identify several federal district court cases involving the 564 Patent. Pet. 1 2; Paper 4, 2 3. The parties also identify several other petitions for inter partes review relating to the 564 Patent, including two previous petitions filed by Google, Inc., IPR and IPR , upon which no trials were instituted. Id. B. The 564 Patent The 564 Patent is entitled Hand-Held With Auto-Zoom For Graphical Display Of Web Page, and relates to a graphical user interface for devices with a relatively small screen real estate, such as handheld information appliances including mobile phones and palmtop computers. Ex. 1001, 1: The graphical user interface is designed to implement an auto-zoom functionality that magnifies an image on a display too small 2

3 for the total information content, given the display s resolution and size. Id. at 2: The 564 Patent details that the inventor realized that such an auto-zoom feature was useful not only with respect to elements of the user interface, but can be used to zoom in portions of retrieved information which are of interest to the user, such as hyperlinks. Id. at 2: The graphical user interface of the 564 Patent utilizes a touchscreen and is operative to enable the user to select via the touch screen a portion of the image when displayed at a first scale, and thereafter renders the selected portion on the display at a second scale larger than the first scale. Id. at 2: According to specific embodiments, the zoomed-in area is centered around the touch location. Id. at 4:26. The 564 Patent reissued as a patent on August 7, 2012, based on a reissue application for U.S. Patent No. 6,466,203 B2 (Ex. 1009) filed December 29, During that proceeding, Patent Owner amended previously-issued claims 1 6 to clarify that the zoomed-in portion of the image was substantially centered around the touch location, rather than the touch screen, and to add claim 7 directed to the scrolling magnification embodiment. Ex. 1016, 4 7 (emphasis added). C. Challenged Claims Petitioner challenges claims 1 7 of the 564 Patent. Claim 1 is independent and illustrative of the claims under challenge: 1. A handheld communication device comprising: a wireless modem for receiving data; a display that has a substantially small size suitable for the handheld communication device; 3

4 a data processing system connected to the modem and to the display for processing the received data and for rendering an image corresponding to the data received; a touch screen for enabling a user to interact with the device; wherein: the system is operative to enable the user to select through a touch location on the touch screen a portion of the image, when displayed at a first scale, for rendering the selected portion on the display at a second scale larger than the first scale thereby facilitating a selection of a feature; and the selected portion when rendered at the second scale is a zoomed-in version of part of the image at the first scale substantially centered around the touch location. Ex. 1001, 5:50 6:16. D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Petitioner challenges claims 1 7 of the 564 Patent on the following grounds. Pet. 3 4, Reference(s) Basis Claim(s) Challenged Murase 1 and Heikkinen , 2, 6, and 7 Murase, Heikkinen, and Priestman Björk , 3, 4, and 6 Björk, Robertson, 5 and Seidensticker , 6, and 7 1 Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H , published October 9, 1998 (Ex. 1003, Murase ). Petitioner has provided a certified translation of Murase from Japanese into English (Ex. 1004). 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036, issued Jun. 6, 2000 (Ex. 1005, Heikkinen ). 3 Int l Pat. App. Pub. No. WO 99/59312, published Nov. 18, 1999 (Ex. 1006, Priestman ). 4 Staffan Björk et al., WEST: A Web Browser for Small Terminals, The 12th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (1999) (Ex. 1007, Björk ). 5 U.S. Patent No. 5,670,984, issued Sept. 23, 1997 (Ex. 1010, Robertson ). 6 U.S. Patent No. 5,920,327, issued July 6, 1999 (Ex. 1011, Seidensticker ). 4

5 Reference(s) Basis Claim(s) Challenged Björk and Brooks Björk, Robertson, Seidensticker, and Brooks In support of its arguments, Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Loren Terveen (Ex. 1002). See id. E. Claim Construction We construe claims in an unexpired patent by applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R (b); Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Under this standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer, however, and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term in the specification. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In conjunction with the prior petitions submitted by Google, Inc., we construed the claim terms feature and facilitating selection of a feature, which the present Petitioner adopts for purposes of this Petition; Patent Owner does not dispute those constructions for purposes of this Decision. See Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp U.S. Patent No. 7,339,993 B1, issued Mar. 4, 2008 (Ex. 1012, Brooks ). 5

6 In addition, Petitioner argues that language found in claims 1 and 6, namely the selected portion when rendered at the second scale is a zoomedin version of part of the image at the first scale substantially centered around the touch location, should not be construed to exclude the enlargement of the predetermined segment[s] of the image. Pet Petitioner continues that the Specification of the 564 Patent makes clear that the enlarged content need not be strictly centered around the touch location as would be the case in the alternative, disclosed approach. Id. at 26. We are not persuaded that the specified limitations of claims 1 and 6 need to be explicitly construed or limited in order to evaluate the efficacies of the proposed grounds of unpatentability. As such, for purposes of this Decision, we conclude that no term requires express construction to resolve a controversy in this proceeding. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( [O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. ). III. DISCUSSION Petitioner argues that claims 1 7 of the 564 Patent would have been obvious over the asserted grounds of unpatentability discussed above. Pet Patent Owner disputes that the asserted grounds demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the claims challenged in the Petition. Prelim. Resp For the reasons explained below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has 6

7 demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of these asserted grounds. 8 A. Obviousness over Murase and Heikkinen Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 would have been obvious over Murase and Heikkinen. Pet We begin with overviews of Murase and Heikkinen, and then discuss Petitioner s arguments regarding the combination of those references to teach or suggest all of the elements of the cited claims. 1. Murase Murase discloses an auto-zoom feature for a mobile device, whereby when a user s finger or stylus approaches the touch screen of the mobile device, the corresponding portion of the image is automatically enlarged. Ex , Abstract. This is illustrated in Figure 2, reproduced below. 8 Because we deny the Petition on substantive grounds, as explained in the sections below, we do not reach Patent Owner s arguments that we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) and 325(d). See Prelim. Resp

8 If a selection within the enlarged portion is made by the user, a coordinate conversion is performed and the displayed application program receives an input based on the user s selection with respect to the enlarged display screen. Id. 11. Murase provides that the auto-zoom feature may be applied to any content displayed by the device, including new information, images, and the like received via the mobile device s communication means. Id. 8, 38. Murase indicates that its processes seek to solve the problems caused when small screens hamper the process of selecting with a finger or pen through incorrect selection. Id. 6, Heikkinen Heikkinen describes mobile stations having a touch sensitive input for the detection of user inputs. Ex. 1005, 1:7 10. Heikkinen notes that because of the small size of the display, there may not be enough room to depict all of the symbols available to the user. Id. at 1: Figures 3 and 5B of Heikkinen, which are reproduced below, illustrate different embodiments of Heikkinen s display. 8

9 Figure 3 is a detail of a display in an initial state and its magnified state. Id. at 3: Figure 5B is an exemplary display with a fisheye display magnification function. Id. at 3: With respect to the user interface as illustrated in Figure 3, in an initial state, each area of the display shows a particular symbol, defined by each pressure sensing element of the 10 by 10 matrix of display 20. Id. at 5: Fingertip FT is placed on display 20, and elements are re-displayed in a magnified or zoomed fashion, so that a particular symbol can be selected. Id. at 5:48 6:5. In another embodiment, the magnification can be provided through a fisheye effect, as illustrated in Figure 5B. In addition, the mobile station includes a modulator, a transmitter, a receiver, a demodulator, and a controller, and can receive signals in accordance with an air interface standard. Id. at 3: The operating program resides in memory 24, and includes routines to present messages and message-related functions to the user on display 20. Id. at 4: Heikkinen discloses that memory 24 is typically in a ROM [Read Only Memory] device. Id. at 4: Heikkinen also provides that not all of display 20 need be touch sensitive, so that a portion may be used in a conventional fashion for displaying user-selected symbols, prompts from the mobile controller, a received SMS message, etc., while the remainder of display 20 is operated as a user input device. Id. at 10: Motivation to Combine Murase and Heikkinen Petitioner asserts that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Murase and Heikkinen for multiple reasons. Pet. 31. Petitioner asserts that both references seek to solve the same problem, teach solutions having similar designs, and that skilled artisans 9

10 would have understood that Heikkinen s software-based touch-to-zoom approach would have had certain advantages over Murase s dependence on an approach detecting device. Id. at Petitioner further cites to its declarant for the proposition that [a]s of the relevant priority date, touch screens rarely supported proximity detection, and those that did required the stylus to be very close to the screen before the stylus was detected. Id. at 32 (citing Ex ). From this latter proposition, Petitioner argues that it would have been difficult for a user to bring a finger or pen close enough to the touch screen to register an approach event without accidently touching the screen and making an unintended selection. Id. at Because of this, Petitioner asserts that it would have been cheaper and easier to simply use a softwarebased touch-to-zoom solution like the one disclosed in Heikkinen. Id. at 33. Petitioner also asserts that it would have been easy to modify Murase s process to use touch coordinates rather than approach coordinates to enlarge an area surrounding the coordinates, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in achieving Murase s desired result of having accurate selection. Id. (citing Ex ). In response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner s proffered motivation to combine Murase and Heikkinen would contradict the express teachings of Murase. Prelim. Resp Patent Owner points out that Murase s sole objective is to automatically and immediately enlarge a portion of the screen in advance of a touch input so that the desired input is selected with a single touch. Id. at 33 (citing Ex ). Patent Owner also points out that Murase describes a conventional touch input device, to which the disclosed invention is contrasted, and Patent Owner argues that 10

11 the approach method of Murase is crucial to provide its disclosed immediate and automatic selection process. Id. at (citing Ex , 24 26, Fig. 5). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioners proposal to eliminate the very feature accomplishing Murase s objective of automatic and immediate zoom, cannot pass muster under 103. Id. at 36 (citing Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., RW, 646 Fed. App x 1019, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We agree with Patent Owner. Although Petitioner has addressed similar problems solved and the solutions taught by Murase and Heikkinen, their processes are not necessarily compatible. The benefits discussed in Murase of allowing for detection of an approaching finger or pen, would not follow for the system of Heikkinen. A detected touch in Murase would register as a selection, whereas a touch in Heikkinen is only the first part of a longer process that would require a sustained stationary touch to register as a user input selection. We are not persuaded that Heikkinen s processes would have been considered an improvement in the context of both disclosures. In addition, the assertions by Petitioner and its declarant, i.e., that touch screens of the era rarely supported proximity detection and could cause unintended selections (Pet ), can be taken as a rationale to not employ the processes of Murase, as opposed to suggesting differing processes, as suggested by Petitioner. We are not persuaded that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been persuaded to employ technology that was expensive and prone to error, as suggested; more likely they would have sought out alternate technologies that were not defined by such deficiencies. In the case of Murase, its specific teachings are directed to use 11

12 of proximity detection and enlargement to avoid incorrect selection, which undermine the rationale being proffered for its combination with Heikkinen. We are also persuaded that the proffered combination of Murase and Heikkinen would change the basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed to operate. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (C.C.P.A. 1959). Replacing a system that that allows for identification and selection upon touch, i.e., Murase, with a system of protracted touch with magnification and selection, i.e., Heikkinen, would change the manner that the system in Murase was designed to operate. For this additional reason, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Murase and Heikkinen as suggested by Petitioner. As such, we are not persuaded that the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 would have been obvious over Murase and Heikkinen. With respect to this ground of unpatentability, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. B. Obviousness over Murase, Heikkinen, and Priestman With respect to claims 3 5, Petitioner asserts that those claims would have been obvious over Murase, Heikkinen, and Priestman. Pet This ground of unpatentability relies on the ground discussed above, namely the combination of Murase and Heikkinen. Id. at Petitioner supplies a motivation to combine Priestman with Murase and Heikkinen (id. at 51 52), but does not cure the deficiencies we determined above with respect to the combination of references. Because of this, as we are not persuaded by 12

13 the prior ground, we likewise are not persuaded by Petitioner with respect to the ground applying Murase, Heikkinen, and Priestman to claims 3 5. C. Obviousness over Björk Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 would have been obvious over Björk. Pet We begin with an overview of Björk, and then discuss Petitioner s arguments regarding the modification of Björk and its application to the challenged claims. 1. Björk Björk describes WEST, a web browser for small terminals, such as Personal Data Assistants (PDAs). Ex. 1007, Abstract. The browser presents web pages as a series of cards, and uses a process of flipping between cards to navigate between the cards and to allow for a focus on a particular card. Id. 17, 29. As shown in Figure 1, reproduced below, a focus card is enlarged, with the other cards displayed as smaller thumbnails to provide context. 13

14 Figure 1 is a picture of the WEST browser on a simulated Palm OS TM display. Id. 3. A user can point to a card to make it the focus card and point to it again to display the card in full-screen mode. Id. 29, 53. The enlarged view facilitates the reading of card content and selection of material. Id. 14, 33, 42, Proposed Modification of Björk Petitioner argues that the WEST browser was disclosed as running on a Palm device having a PalmOS such that the Palm device would have included a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying software. Pet. 57 (citing Ex ). Petitioner also asserts that Björk discloses GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) and WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), such that its mobile device would have necessarily included wireless modems to modulate between data and wireless transmission signals. Id. at 58 (citing Ex ). Further, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Björk s browser would have run on top of an operating system, utilizing a processor connected to the modem and display. Id. at 59 (citing Ex ). Lastly, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to tap the center of the focus card, to render it in a zoomed-in fashion at a larger scale, as tapping it near the edge would have risked erroneously selecting a neighboring card. Id. at 59 (citing Ex ). 3. Patent Owner s Rebuttal to Obviousness over Björk With respect to this ground of unpatentability, Patent Owner argues that the portions of Björk cited by Petitioner fail to disclose the selection of a feature based on an image at a second scale, per claims 1 and 6. Prelim. 14

15 Resp. 48. Patent Owner points out that Petitioner cites paragraphs 38 and 43 of Björk, as well as figures 4 and 5, as disclosing the selection of a feature. Id. (citing Pet. 60). Patent Owner argues that these cited portions describe browsing the cards in a deck and an overview of system components, but do not disclose selection of a feature based on an image displayed at a second scale. Id. We agree with Patent Owner. Björk makes clear that web pages to be viewed on the WEST browser are pre-processed by a proxy server that divides a page into smaller pages, or cards, determines keywords summarizing each card based on its text, and extracts hyperlinks for a link view. Ex From that preprocessing, the cards provide a thumbnail view, with miniature views of the cards, a keyword view, with keywords extracted from the card presented, and a link view, displaying links available on each card. Id. 12. Examples of each, as provided in Björk, are reproduced below: expanded thumbnail keywords links Although the link Chicago Cubs is visible in the expanded thumbnail view of the card, i.e., portion of the webpage, Björk makes clear that the user needs to switch to the link view since she is looking for a link to the chat page. Ex Björk does not specify that the expanded thumbnail version allows for the selection of the link, and instead provides an alternate functionality to allow for the selection of a link. As such, although 15

16 Petitioner asserts that Björk describ[es] clicking on link while page is in focus (Pet. 60), we are not persuaded that Björk does teach or suggest what Petitioner has asserted. Based on the evidence Petitioner cites, Björk does not teach or suggest the selection of a feature based on an image at a second scale, per claims 1 and 6. In addition, claims 1 and 6 also specify that the zoomed-in version is a part of the image at the first scale substantially centered around the touch location. Petitioner asserts that tapping near the center of a card would have been obvious to avoid erroneous selections of other cards (Pet. 62), but we are not persuaded that selection near the center of the card would be warranted in view of the disclosure of Björk. Given the preprocessing in Björk, making a particular card a focus card and zooming-in on that card does not depend on what portion of a particular card is selected. Although we agree with Petitioner that it might have been obvious to select near the center, the part of the image upon which zooming-in occurs would not be based on the selection of the card as the focus card. As such, we are not persuaded that the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 would have been obvious over Björk. With respect to this ground of unpatentability, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. D. Obviousness over Björk, Robertson, Seidensticker, and Brooks Petitioner also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability based on Björk, discussed in the prior section: 1) claims 1 4, 6, and 7 as obvious over Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker; 2) claim 5 as obvious over Björk and Brooks; and 3) claim 5 as obvious over Björk, Robertson, Seidensticker, and Brooks. Pet

17 The second ground identified above depends on the obviousness of independent claim 1 over Björk alone; as we are not persuaded by the prior ground, we likewise are not persuaded by Petitioner with respect to the ground applying Björk and Brooks. Similarly, the reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing as to the ground applying Björk, Robertson, Seidensticker, and Brooks, of claim 5, stands or falls with Petitioner prevailing with respect to the ground applying Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker. We discuss the latter ground below, beginning with overviews of Robertson and Seidensticker. 1. Robertson Robertson is directed to a method for displaying an image on a display surface, which preserves context and detail information when the image is compressed to fit onto a display surface. Ex. 1010, Abstract. Robertson addresses the problem of how to display an image containing large amounts of information on a display where the image is too large to be displayed in its entirety at full resolution. Id. at 1: The system in Robertson simulates the placement of a lens on top of a large image such as a multipage document, where the user controls the position and size of the lens. Id. at Abstract, 4: The enlarged portion is shown in a thick outline in Figure 8 of Robertson, reproduced below. 17

18 Figure 8 is a displayed image of a multi-page document as seen through an image lens with text in the side panel s greeked. Id. at 5: Seidensticker Seidensticker describes techniques for displaying a relatively large set of image data on a relative smaller physical display device. Ex. 1011, Abstract. Seidensticker discloses a fisheye display embodiment in which a region is displayed at full resolution, adjoining other regions in which the resolution diminishes at successively spaced pixels, where the region may be centered around the position of a stylus. Id. at 3:18 20, 5: Motivation to Combine Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker Petitioner asserts that all three references, Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker, address the same fundamental problem, that Björk expressly recognizes the work of the inventors of Robertson, and that all three references allow a user to view one part of a dataset in detail without losing the context of all of the data. Pet Additionally, Petitioner asserts that persons of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the advantages of Robertson s document lens approach over Björk s flipzooming approach, and would have been motivated to include 18

19 Seidensticker s teaching of centering the focus area around the touch location because it was one of only a few commonly use configurations. Id. at Patent Owner s Rebuttal to Obviousness over Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker Patent Owner responds to this ground of unpatentability by pointing out that Björk s handheld device has extremely limited processing capability, and that Robertson s lens interface requires a specialized 3Dprocessing workstation to accomplish the rendering and transformation operations associated with the interface. Prelim. Resp. 55. Patent Owner continues that Björk acknowledges the considerable challenges in designing handheld device interfaces given that processor and memory capabilities of a handheld device are of course far below the specification of any current desktop computer. Id. (citing Ex ). Patent Owner also points out that Björk details its handheld devices are not capable of any advanced visual calculations needed to provide smooth graphical transformations and provide responsive interactions. Id. at (citing Ex ). Patent Owner also points out the specific computation requirements for systems implementing Robertson s processes, including a specialized 3D graphics engine. Id. at 56 (citing Ex. 1010, 8:22 33). Because of these factors, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to incorporate Robertson s lens approach with Björk s handheld device because Björk s handheld device would not possess the computing capability required. We agree with Patent Owner. Claims 1 and 6 both require that the data processing system of the handheld communication device be capable of processing the received data 19

20 and for rendering an image corresponding to the data received. In the context of Björk, this is accomplished with the limited processing power of the handheld device through pre-processing of webpages before they are sent to the device. See Ex , 12. We are persuaded that to incorporate Robertson s lens interface into Björk s system would overwhelm the limited processing power of the handheld device. In addition, we are not persuaded that the incorporation of Robertson and Seidensticker into Björk would overcome the problems discussed above with respect to Björk alone, i.e., Björk does not teach or suggest the selection of a feature based on an image at a second scale, per claims 1 and 6. The use of Robertson s document lens approach and/or Seidensticker s teaching of centering the focus area around the touch location would not address the noted deficiencies of Björk. As such, we are not persuaded that the subject matter of claims 1 4, 6, and 7 would have been obvious over Björk, Robertson, and Seidensticker. Similarly, we are also not persuaded that the subject matter of claim 5 would have been obvious over Björk, Robertson, Seidensticker, and Brooks. With respect to these grounds of unpatentability, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to challenged claims 1 7. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any challenged claim of the 564 Patent. 20

21 For the reasons given, it is V. ORDER ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted. 21

22 PETITIONER: Christina J. McCullough Patrick J. McKeever PERKINS COIE LLP PATENT OWNER: Justin J. Oliver Stephen K. Yam Jason Dorsky FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO 22