Details:
Ex parte Boucherie
Appeal 2010002109; Appl. 10/530,351; Tech. Center 1700
Decided May 2, 2011
The application on appeal related to a method for manufacturing plungers for medical syringes.
1. Method for manufacturing plungers for medical syringes,
said plunger comprising at least two parts including a longitudinal plunger body made of plastic and a piston body provided at a front end of the plunger body,
which piston body comprises a plastic which is softer than the plastic of the plunger body,
wherein said plunger, or at least a part of the plunger, is formed by first manufacturing the piston body and then the plunger body, or at least a part of the plunger body, by means of injection moulding, and
wherein the plunger body, or said part of the plunger body, is injected against the piston body,
said piston body having a front side and a side wall and being formed such that the front side and side wall thereof are free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic.
(Emphasis added.)
The term "flash lines," also known as flashing, refers to the excess bits of plastic produced by the molding process. As explained in the specification, this excess plastic is especially undesirable for a medical syringe, since the material "may come off and thus end up in the reservoir of the syringe, and thus also in the medical liquid to be injected."
The Examiner rejected the independent claims as being anticipated by various references. One of the references was a Japanese patent publication, Chiba, which disclosed a method of manufacturing a syringe. The Examiner asserted that manufactured syringe was shown in Fig. 1 of Chiba as having no flash lines or gate points and thus met the claim limitation highlighted above.
On the final rejection, the Applicant appealed and argued (inter alia) the claim limitation highlighted above. In the Appeal Brief, the Applicant distinguished Chiba as follows:
As can be seen in Figs. 2(a)-(c) of the Chiba publication, the front side and the sidewalls of the gasket 6 include a gate point for the thermoplastic elastomer and flash lines, respectively. For clarification, the flash lines are formed on the side wall of the gasket 6 along the split between the molds 21a, 21b. This is due to the fact that some of the thermoplastic elastomer material injected to form the gasket 6 will fill in the gaps defined by the split between the two mold parts 21a, 21b, no matter how small the gaps are.In the annotated Fig. 2(c) below, the flash lines are drawn in red.
In the Answer, the Examiner explained that the manufactured product in Fig. 1 was relied on for teaching the contested limitation:
Figure 1 of Chiba clearly shows a gasket 6 (i.e. piston body) that is free from any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic. Although Figures 2(a)-2(c) show a gasket 6 (i.e. piston body) having a gate point, this gate point is removed to the extent that the resulting gasket, shown in Figure 1, is free from any flash lines or gate points. Note that the claim does not require the piston to be free of any flash lines and/or gate points as it exits the die, for example, but the claim only requires the piston being free from flash lines and/or gate points. It is therefore interpreted that as long as the final form of the molded gasket 6 (i.e. piston body) is free from flash lines and/or gate points, Chiba's gasket 6, as shown in Figure 1, meets the claimed limitation. The claim does not preclude a finishing step that would remove any flash lines or gate points resulting from the molding process.The Applicant filed a Reply Brief to contest these findings. First, the Applicant repeated the explanation of how the manufacturing process discussed in the text of Chiba and illustrated in Figs. 2(a) - (c) of Chiba would produce flash lines and gate points. The Applicant then explained why it was inappropriate to rely on the final product shown in Chiba's Fig. 1 for the claimed process limitation:
(Emphasis added.)
While the flash lines and the gate point for the plastic may not actually appear to be shown in Fig. 1, this may be for a number of reasons that do not involve the steps according to the method as recited in claim 1. In particular, since the drawing of Fig. 1 is shown as a cross-sectional view, if the view is taken along any plane other than the plane that contains the flash lines, the flash lines would not appear in the drawing of Fig. 1. Alternatively, even if the cross-sectional view is taken along the plane that contains the flash lines, since there is a necessary compression of the gasket 6 at the interface between the gasket 6 and the walls 4a of the outer case 4 to ensure sealing therebetween, such flash lines would also be compressed, and not necessarily visible in the drawing of Fig. 1.
The Reply Brief also explained that while finishing steps in general were not excluded by the claim, those that eliminated flash lines and gate points were excluded, by the "formed free of" limitation:
While the examiner's answer is correct in that pending claim 1 does not preclude any finishing steps, such a finishing step to remove any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic is unnecessary in the method of pending claim 1, which requires that the front wall and side wall of the piston body are formed free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic at the injection molding step.
(Emphasis added.)
The Board agreed with the Applicant and reversed the Chiba anticipation rejection:
We are in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings are insufficient to establish that Chiba inherently performs a step to remove the flash lines and gate point created in the disclosed molding process. As explained by Appellant, there are a number of reasons why the flash lines and gate point formed in the gasket during the Fig. 2(a)-(c) molding process might not be illustrated in the syringe shown in Fig. 1, though actually present in the final molded product. (Rep. Br.10 5-7.)
My two cents: Right result, and an example of good advocacy. The Applicant didn't just say that the Examiner was wrong, but explained why. And every time the Examiner provided more information about what he was thinking, the Applicant explained in even more detail why this was wrong. Perhaps the Board would have looked at the facts and decided for the Applicant anyway – but the Applicants arguments made it easy for the Board to reach that result.
The Examiner's mistake in thinking that the reference anticipated because the claim didn't exclude a finishing step is a common one. Yes, it's true that the transition term "comprising" allows additional steps. But not one that is excluded by other claim limitations, which is the case here: "said piston body ... being formed such that the front side and side wall thereof are free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic." As the Federal Circuit so aptly put it, " '[c]omprising' is not a weasel word with which to abrogate claim limitations." (Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2007).)
I cannot wait to hear how 6 would have rejected it.
ReplyDelete"1. Method for manufacturing plungers for medical syringes,
ReplyDeletesaid plunger comprising at least two parts including a longitudinal plunger body made of plastic and a piston body provided at a front end of the plunger body,
which piston body comprises a plastic which is softer than the plastic of the plunger body,
wherein said plunger, or at least a part of the plunger, is formed by first manufacturing the piston body and then the plunger body, or at least a part of the plunger body, by means of injection moulding, and
wherein the plunger body, or said part of the plunger body, is injected against the piston body,
said piston body having a front side and a side wall and being formed such that the front side and side wall thereof are free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic."
Short form for this claim:
A method for manufacturing special plungers medical syringes WHEREIN the plunger or part of the plunger is formed by x process and wherein there are some other special things about the plunger.
In other words a method for making a special product made by a special process where the method itself has no recited steps.
In other words, a method by product by process claim. I.e. mixed stat class claim. Goodbye under 101 and/or 112. Although I might throw in some art for lols.
"I cannot wait to hear how 6 would have rejected it. "
As I reject all nonsensically drafted claims. First, I make them draft the claim properly.
Hell, I'm not even sure if the past tense "is formed by first manufacturing the piston body and then the plunger body, or at least a part of the plunger body, by means of injection moulding, and" is a process step by which we can judge the product by process limitation in this claim.
Definitely throw the 112 in there.
"In other words, a method by product by process claim. I.e. mixed stat class claim. Goodbye under 101 and/or 112. Although I might throw in some art for lols. "
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should read:
In other words, a method by product by process claim with no steps of the method recited. I.e. mixed stat class claim. Goodbye under 101 and/or 112. Although I might throw in some art for lols.
>In other words, a method by product by
ReplyDelete>process claim. I.e. mixed stat class claim
Noticeably, the BPAI didn't bring up mixed statutory categories or or even mention the words "product by process." Not as creative in their thinking as 6 is.
Terribly drafted claim, no doubt, but not a mix of statutory categories as 6tard alleges.
ReplyDelete"Not as creative in their thinking as 6 is."
Part of the price to be paid if you want to go from examinertardom to APJtardom. You can make up a lot of sh!t as an APJtard, but not nearly as much as you can as an examinertard.
Did the Examiner provide a full translation of the Chiba reference? If not, did the Applicant provide a full translation with its reply? It's infuriating when an Examiner states that a figure in a foreign reference shows a particular feature, provides a copy of the foreign reference with only the abstract translated in English and then the Applicant discovers, after having to spring for the cost of a full translation, that a full translation would have informed the Examiner that the feature shown in the figure was not at all what the Examiner said it was. As far as I know, the Translation Branch is still there at the PTO but too few Examiners seem to take advantage of it.
ReplyDelete"Noticeably, the BPAI didn't bring up mixed statutory categories or or even mention the words "product by process." Not as creative in their thinking as 6 is. "
ReplyDeleteThis issue flys under the radar of most examiners that have not focused exclusively on method claims for the majority of their cases for awhile. When you start getting method claim after method claim after method claim things start to come into focus for you.
It's pretty ez to distinguish a method claim by not using method steps since it will be pretty much impossible to find art for it. It's too bad the patent lawls don't allow it.
"Terribly drafted claim, no doubt, but not a mix of statutory categories as 6tard alleges."
Lulz, tell it to the rejection when it shows up in ur mailbox. Also, feel free to point out what the method steps are in this "method". Just for lols of course.
If, instead of saying it is a mixed class method, you'd rather say that it is simply a method with no steps recited then I don't have an issue with going that route instead, one way or the tother this claim would be redrafted properly if it goes through my office.
It is actually pretty amazing how many cases I allow after making people redraft their claims from scratch. It seems that when an attorney "has" to redraft the claim from scratch due to horrendous problems in the claim then they're not held back by some misguided desire to try to stick as close as possible to the original language and so they usually draft a claim that steers well clear of the art I cite or apply.
So, in a manner of speaking, fin up your claim horrendously often turns out to shorten prosecution.
"Did the Examiner provide a full translation of the Chiba reference? If not, did the Applicant provide a full translation with its reply? It's infuriating when an Examiner states that a figure in a foreign reference shows a particular feature, provides a copy of the foreign reference with only the abstract translated in English and then the Applicant discovers, after having to spring for the cost of a full translation, that a full translation would have informed the Examiner that the feature shown in the figure was not at all what the Examiner said it was. As far as I know, the Translation Branch is still there at the PTO but too few Examiners seem to take advantage of it. "
ReplyDeleteIt is policy that if we want to rely on something in the untranslated text we have to provide a translation, however if we just want to use the abstract then I don't believe we have to do such.
As to your btching about a full translation cost, meh, at least for JP refs you can get a free machine translation for nearly all of them. Likewise for most other languages. You can make your own translations on google translate for languages that use arabic numerals quite easily. You also should be able to get a free translation of Korean stuff (although they may have started charging), and I heard chinese is coming in the not so far off future.
"at least for JP refs you can get a free machine translation for nearly all of them. Likewise for most other languages. You can make your own translations on google translate for languages that use arabic numerals quite easily."
ReplyDeleteOnly someone with complete disregard for subsequent litigation would rely on a free machine translation. What was 'free' could wind up costing you down the line. Relying on an abstract to reject claim language is the epitomy of laziness on the part of the Examiner.
Same deal in a decision yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2009014677-08-01-2011-1
I thought the claim was drawn to method/process. Why did the applicant, examiner, and bpai focus on the end result of the process?
ReplyDelete"said piston body having a front side and a side wall and being formed such that the front side and side wall thereof are free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic" is not a process step. It's the product, like someone said earlier. And there aren't any steps that would actually be enough to make that resultant product.
"Also, feel free to point out what the method steps are in this 'method'."
ReplyDeleteThere are method steps in the claim. Your inability to see them is due to your examiner "training" that there's some "format" that's required for claims. There isn't.
You must be one of those tard examiners that objects to some of my claims because there's no transition phase, or some other silly reason.
If you've been prosecuting patent applications for a living for more than a year, and you haven't cited MPEP 706.02 II to an examiner at least once, you're doing something wrong.
There may be inherent structural differences between a body formed free of any flash lines and/or gate points for the plastic versus a body formed with flash lines and/or gate points that are subsequently dealt with.
ReplyDelete>Did the Examiner provide a full translation >of the Chiba reference?
ReplyDeleteThe rejection says "anticipated by
Chiba (WO 01/70311), using a translation of the related document JP 2001-259031" where the related JP document is the priority document for the WO case.
So yes, the Examiner relied on a translation rather than merely drawings and/or abstract.
Can't tell whether the Examiner used a machine translation or a PTO-provided translation because the translation itself isn't part of the record. PAIR shows an "NPL" on the same date as the Office Action issuing the rejection, but that's not downloadable through Private PAIR.
>you haven't cited MPEP 706.02 II to an
ReplyDelete>examiner at least once, you're doing >something wrong.
I'm quite familiar with the contents of the MPEP, but I don't recognize section numbers without context. So I looked up your cryptic reference and see that 706.02 II is "RELIANCE UPON ABSTRACTS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF A REJECTION".
Agree that when the Examiner relies solely on a translated Abstract you should ask him to provide a full translation, pointing to MPEP 706.02 II.
"Only someone with complete disregard for subsequent litigation would rely on a free machine translation. What was 'free' could wind up costing you down the line."
ReplyDeleteWell that is all the PTO provides anyway. The people over in the translation dept don't hardly do any real translating anymore. I know, I've asked them.
"Relying on an abstract to reject claim language is the epitomy of laziness on the part of the Examiner. "
I doubt it.
"There are method steps in the claim. Your inability to see them is due to your examiner "training" that there's some "format" that's required for claims. There isn't."
Lulz, there is in my office tard. Past tense nonsensical ramblings are not steps and methods require steps. See ex parte lyell amongst other more recent federal circuit decisions.
Just because you're one of the tards that feels free to write whatever sht pile you want to down doesn't mean that there aren't examiners whom, if they weren't gigantic pussies, would tell you to draft right or gtfo.
Note the part where it states that the full text document may very well include teachings away from the invention that will preclude an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, when the abstract alone appears to support the rejection.
ReplyDeleteMPEP 706.02 II. RELIANCE UPON ABSTRACTS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF A REJECTION
Prior art uncovered in searching the claimed subject matter of a patent application often includes English language abstracts of underlying documents, such as technical literature or foreign patent documents which may not be in the English language. When an abstract is used to support a rejection, the evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the abstract, not additional facts that may be contained in the underlying full text document. Citation of and reliance upon an abstract without citation of and reliance upon the underlying scientific document is generally inappropriate where both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art. See Ex parte Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001) (unpublished).To determine whether both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art, a copy of the underlying document must be obtained and analyzed. If the document is in a language other than English and the examiner seeks to rely on that document, a translation must be obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection. The record must also be clear as to whether the examiner is relying upon the abstract or the full text document to support a rejection. The rationale for this is several-fold. It is not uncommon for a full text document to reveal that the document fully anticipates an invention that the abstract renders obvious at best. The converse may also be true, that the full text document will include teachings away from the invention that will preclude an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, when the abstract alone appears to support the rejection. An abstract can have a different effective publication date than the full text document. Because all patentability determinations are fact dependent, obtaining and considering full text documents at the earliest practicable time in the examination process will yield the fullest available set of facts upon which to determine patentability, thereby improving quality and reducing pendency.When both the abstract and the underlying document qualify as prior art, the underlying document should normally be used to support a rejection. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the examiner to make a rejection in a non-final Office action based in whole or in part on the abstract only without relying on the full text document. In such circumstances, the full text document and a translation (if not in English) may be supplied in the next Office action. Whether the next Office action may be made final is governed by MPEP § 706.07(a).
"See ex parte lyell..."
ReplyDeleteLulz
Got any cases that are not inapposite?
Try again, examinertard
Ya know, I'm all for snappy banter but the overuse of "tard" is getting rather banal. Still, someday soon there will be an Office Action or Reply where the use of "tard" is going to get someone in trouble.
ReplyDelete"Ya know, I'm all for snappy banter but the overuse of "tard" is getting rather banal."
ReplyDeleteI know, tards should leave it to me to call them.
"Still, someday soon there will be an Office Action or Reply where the use of "tard" is going to get someone in trouble. "
My spe always catches me before I get to send such OA's out. He even catches me when I try to sugar coat it. Indeed, it is hard for me to not say something or other of a snarky nature when someone comes in with off the wall arguments wasting my time.
"it is hard for me to not say something or other of a snarky nature when someone comes in with off the wall arguments wasting my time."
ReplyDeleteIf that is true, then you have some idea of what it is like for an Applicant receiving an off-the-wall Office Action. I say some idea because an examiner collects money (i.e., a paycheck) regardless of the merits of the examiner's arguments while most applicants do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend responding to meritless off the wall examiner arguments. Your time, as an examiner, belongs to the applicants who pay fees to the PTO that cover your salary. An examiner's time is not wasted, but an applicant's money may be wasted by an examiner (and/or the applicant's legal representative). Now, what a difference it would make if an examiner reversed by the BPAI had full or partial counts deducted from their production. Kinda like blowing that 60 days deadline and incurring a -1 workflow.
"My spe always catches me before I get to send such OA's out. He even catches me when I try to sugar coat it."
ReplyDeleteIt seemed clear that you weren't experienced enough to have sig authority. Frankly, I'm impressed by your SPE actually living up to the "supervisor" aspect of his/her title since so many seemed to have abdicated that role in the last decade.
"If that is true, then you have some idea of what it is like for an Applicant receiving an off-the-wall Office Action. "
ReplyDeleteYep I do.
However, one must also realize whom one is dealing with. If I was dealing with people who are notably not familiar with the lawl at all, have no clue about the caselaw, and do not purport to be experts on such, then I would cut them considerable slack. On the other hand, lawltards are supposedly the experts on these sorts of things.
I mean, if you guys don't like examiners constantly making mistakes on the lawl, then why not make the office employ attorneys as examiners? Or make the office train all examiners to the same extent as attorneys? That is, on your second year the office sends you to their own law school with imported professors etc. You graduate 3 years later, all the while having been working at the office, and then a decade later there you have it, nearly all examiners are now attorneys and they make fewer mistakes of lawl and possibly mistakes of fact.
"I say some idea because an examiner collects money (i.e., a paycheck) regardless of the merits of the examiner's arguments while most applicants do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend responding to meritless off the wall examiner arguments."
Meh, you need new clients. Or you could simply charge them less. Or they could simply not hire a lawltard. Fact is, if the actions are so self-evidently meritless then surely the applicant themselves could respond without your help. But no, they're only meritless when someone who knows wtf they're doing is looking it over.
"An examiner's time is not wasted, but an applicant's money may be wasted by an examiner (and/or the applicant's legal representative). "
Tell that to everyone behind you in the backlog.
"Now, what a difference it would make if an examiner reversed by the BPAI had full or partial counts deducted from their production. "
I doubt it would make any. Examiners aren't usually rejecting you badly out of spite. They're rejecting you badly out of ignorance. Either of facts or the lawl/application of the lawl. You can't "punish" ignorance and expect the punishment to somehow magically cure the ignorance. Besides that, the current appeals process is punishment enough.
"It seemed clear that you weren't experienced enough to have sig authority. Frankly, I'm impressed by your SPE actually living up to the "supervisor" aspect of his/her title since so many seemed to have abdicated that role in the last decade. "
Oh, don't worry, he, along with others, has officially abdicated enough duties. He'll tell you such to your face (or at least he'll tell us to our faces), it is a conscious decision.
But yeah, he's pretty good about looking over my actions. Strangely, it seems like other people get to send out horrendous actions where he would send the same action back to me, so maybe he mainly just reviews my stuff. I mean, for instance, this guy in my AU wrote up this OA, and then my spe put a bunch of comments in the action directed to the examiner. They showed up essentially in gigantic "speech" bubbles on the side of the action. SOMEHOW, this nonsense made it through. And yet, when I make a tiny tiny halfway snarky response that isn't even meant to be snarky, back it comes.
It's not the ignorance, it's the arrogance in thinking that a reply is a personal slam against them. The vast majority of examiners are well below the level of ordinary skill in the art, have no clue as to the actual level of ordinary skill in the art, and are doing their level best to correctly assert prior art references. The arrogance is the belief throwing a half understood rejection at the applicant means that they are doing their job. Any patent practitioner who ever worked as an examiner knows it isn't an easy job. On the flip side, any patent practitioner who hasn't worked as an examiner doesn't have a clue as to what examiners do. My old SPE retired a few years back and started using that reg. no. he earned by working at the PTO. Responding to Office Actions was an eye-opener to him.
ReplyDelete"If I was dealing with people who are notably not familiar with the lawl at all, have no clue about the caselaw..."
ReplyDeleteYou mean somebody like you?
Lulz
"it's the arrogance in thinking that a reply is a personal slam against them."
ReplyDeleteWell that would depend on the wording of said response. Although I will say this, it is very easy to see many responses as a "wasting of your personal time" where the wasting appears intentional.
"The vast majority of examiners are well below the level of ordinary skill in the art, have no clue as to the actual level of ordinary skill in the art, and are doing their level best to correctly assert prior art references. "
Meh, maybe, maybe not, but probably so on the whole.
"The arrogance is the belief throwing a half understood rejection at the applicant means that they are doing their job."
Well until they magically become better at their job then that kind of is their job. Beleive it or not. And that isn't arrogant to think that, it is the nature of "on the job training" which is mostly what the office uses. The system that we have set up around here is literally "your job is to f up and hopefully learn from it eventually". And by that I don't mean that the spe is constantly lecturing to the examiner, I mean that examiners learn largely through the making of mistakes, and only when someone points out to them why it was a mistake in a way in which they may understand. And if you think that the system is otherwise then I'd like you to point me to the place that truly teaches examiners what they need to know in a context in which they could be expect to understand it. I've been through the academy and that sure as f wasn't it. It is a nice try, but it just doesn't do it.
"Responding to Office Actions was an eye-opener to him. "
I bet lol.
"You mean somebody like you?
Lulz "
I'm just better than most, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know. I offer my opinions based on the level of "informed" which I am, as does anyone.
"I'm just better than most..."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're worse. You're the type that reads a snippet of a case and think it supports what you think you already know. When the facts of the case are shown to be completely inapplicable to the facts of the application being examined, your response is "meh" or some such tardishness.
"And if you think that the system is otherwise then I'd like you to point me to the place that truly teaches examiners what they need to know in a context in which they could be expect to understand it."
I've attempted to teach many examiners during interviews. But the usual attitude from the examiners is, "I don't really care why my reliance on this case law I've never read is no good, all I need to know about it is that I can cite it in a rejection and my case will get counted." When faced with "students" who demonstrate that level of interest in being taught, "teaching" becomes a rather pointless exercise.
You can't teach the willfully and invincibly ignorant.
Lulz. I read my cases ya twat. And you don't "apply facts" of previous cases to the instant case. You look for similarities between them if you wish to have that case be considered binding by the body doing the deciding. You look for differences if you wish to have that case not be considered binding. And you don't do either if you merely wish to look to the case for underlying reasoning.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, I do not believe that Lyell is binding here. I merely borrow reasoning from it which is universally applicable. Method claims require method steps to distinguish it from the prior art. That's elemental ya tard, I just gave you Lyell as a handy reference to alleviate your tardation, alas, you are not so easily detarded. The "method steps" of this claim are part of a product by process limitation within a wherein clause of the overall method. There are no method steps of the actual method recited.
It reads in super short form: A method for making plungers wherein the plunger, or at least part of the plunger, is formed by x process.
Not going to cut it. What is the method for making plungers? Go ahead tardface, tell us what it is.
You can assert otherwise all you like in my office it will avail you not. And whatever arguments you make I'll probably shove back in your face with a 112 2nd failure to claim what applicant subjectively believes to be the invention rejection for a little icing on your rejection sandwich. And I'll lulz @ u2.
Note also that once they correct the form of the claim the 102/103 issues almost certainly either be clear cut, or will go away.
And yes, I know all about your inability to teach examiners, one of your greatest failings mr. booksmart. And yes, I also know about your subjective opinion of those whom you failed to persuade and their teachability. You sux at teaching and probably couldn't hack it as a high school teacher. Which is funny considering how much you probably look down upon them.
"To be clear, I do not believe that Lyell is binding here. I merely borrow reasoning from it which is universally applicable."
ReplyDeleteLulz. Universally applicable. You sux at learning.
Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and
ReplyDeletefound that it is really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels.
I will appreciate if you continue this in future. A
lot of people will be benefited from your writing.
Cheers!
Here is my web page ... captain black