text:
Achievement Award for Mechanical Engineering, KAIST, 2006.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang and Dai Gil Lee, “Application of Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites to Trenchless Rehabilitation of Underground Pipes”, Composite Structures, Vol.86, No 1-3, pp. 285-290, 2008.
Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Seong Su Kim and Dai Gil Lee, “Integrated Carbon Composite Bipolar Plate for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells”, Journal of Power Sources, Vol. 189, Issue 2, 15 Pages 929-934, April 2009.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim and Dai Gil Lee, “Optimum Design of Aramid-phenolic/Glass-phenolic Composite Journal Bearings”, Composite Part A, Vol.40, Issue 8, pp. 1186-1191, August 2009.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Jung Do Suh and Dai Gil Lee, “Axiomatic design of the sandwich composite endplate for PEMFC in fuel cell vehicles” Composite Structures, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 1504-1511, April 2010.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Jung Do Suh and Dai Gil Lee, “Composite Endplates with Pre-curvature for PEMFC (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell).” Composite Structures, Vol. 92, No 6, pp. 1498-1503, April 2010.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, Dai Gil Lee, “Adhesive Joining of Marine Composite Journal Bearings to Backing Metals,” Composite Science and Technology , Vol. 67, No 15/16, pp. 3417-3424, 2007.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Dai Gil Lee, “Development of the Carbon/phenolic Composite Shoulder Bearing,” Composite Structures, Vol.88, Issue1, pp. 26-32, March 2009.
In Uk Hwang, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Dai Gil Lee, Jung Do Suh, Sung Ho Lee, Byung Ki Ahn, Sae Hoon Kim, Tae Won Lim, ” Bipolar Plate Made of Carbon Fiber Epoxy Composite for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells”, Journal of Power Sources Vol. 184, Issue 1, pp. 90-94, 15 September, 2008.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Dai Gil Lee, “Characteristics of Wood-polymer Composite for Journal Bearing Materials,” Composite Structures Vol.86, No 1-3. pp. 279-284,2008.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Dai Gil Lee and Seong Nam Kim, Kazuyoshi Suzuki, Hiroyuki Sada, “The Sliding Friction of Hybrid Composite Journal Bearing under Various Test Conditions.” Tribology Letters, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 211-219, August 2009.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, Dai Gil Lee, Hideaki Murayama, Kazuro Kageyama, “Tribological Behaviors of plasma-treated carbon composite grooved surfaces.” Composite Structures, Vol. 92, No 6, pp. 1039-1046, April 2010.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Dai Gil Lee, “Characteristics of Wood-polymer Composite for Journal Bearing Materials,” 14th International Conference on Composite Structures, Melbourne, Australia, 2007.
In Uk Hwang, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Dai Gil Lee, et al., “Development of Carbon Composite Bipolar Plate for Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell in Passenger Vehicle,” 2007 SAE World Congress, Detroit, USA, 2007.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang, Dai Gil Lee, Jung Do Suh, Kwi Seong Jeong, Byung Ki Ahn, “Axiomatic design of hybrid composite endplate for PEMFC in fuel cell vehicles,”Society of Automative Engineers of Japan’s Annual Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 2008.
서정도, 이성호, 안병기, 임태원, 유하나, 이대길,”Axiomatic Design 기법을 이용한 연료전지 냉시동 특성 개선에 관한 연구,” 한국신재생에너지학회 추계학술대회, 2008.
유하나, 김성수, 이대길, “천연섬유를 사용한 친환경 비굴착 하수관 갱생공법 개선에 관한 연구,” 한국복합재료학회 추계학술대회, 2008.
Ha Na Yu, Seoing Su Kim,Dai Gil Lee,”Mechanical and Thermal Characteristics of Composite Sandwich Structures for PEM Fuel Cell,” Korea-Japan Young Researchers Workshop on Composite Materials, 2008.
유하나, 김성수, 서정도, 이대길, “공리설계 기법이 적용된 고분자 전해질 연료전지용 복합재료 엔드플레이트.” 한국복합재료학회 춘계학술대회, 2009.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Jung Do Suh and Dai Gil Lee, “Axiomatic design of the sandwich composite endplate for PEMFC in fuel cell vehicles” 15th International Conference on Composite Structures (Plenary speech), Porto, Portugal, 2009.
Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, Jung Do Suh and Dai Gil Lee, “Composite Endplates with Pre-curvature for PEMFC (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell).” 15th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, Portugal, 2009.
Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, Dai Gil Lee, Hideaki Murayama, Kazuro Kageyama, “Tribological Behaviors of plasma-treated carbon composite grooved surfaces.” 15th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, Portugal, 2009.
유하나, 서정도, 이대길, “Pre-curvature를 가지는 고분자 전해질 연료전지용 복합재료 엔드플레이트.” 한국복합재료학회 추계학술대회, 2009.
Ha Na Yu, Jun Woo Lim, Min Kook Kim, Jung Do Suh, and Dai Gil Lee, “Axiomatic Design of Carbon Composite Bipolar Plate for PEMFC Vehicles,” 21th CIRP Design Conference, KAIST, Daejeon, Korea, 2011.
임준우, 김부기, 유하나, 이대길, “고분자 전해질 연료전지를 위한 복합재료 금속 복합형 분리판.” 한국복합재료학회 춘계학술대회, 2011.
김민국, 유하나, 임준우, 이대길, “PEMFC용 탄소 장섬유 복합재료 분리판의 두께방향 전기전도도 특성 연구.” 한국복합재료학회 춘계학술대회, 2011.
Ha Na Yu, Jun Woo Lim, Min Kook Kim, and Dai Gil Lee, “Optimum Plasma Etching Treatment for the Carbon Composite Bipolar Plate of PEM Fuel Cells,” 16th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, Portugal, 2011.
Jun Woo Lim, Ha Na Yu, Bu Gi Kim, and Dai Gil Lee, “Carbon Composite Metal Hybrid Bipolar Plate for High efficiency PEMFC,” 16th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, Portugal, 2011.
Min Kook Kim, Ha Na Yu, Jun Woo Lim, and Dai Gil Lee, “Electrical Conductivity in the Through-thickness Direction of the Carbon Composite Bipolar Plate for the PEMFC,” 16th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, Portugal, 2011.
” End plate for fuel cell stack and method for manufacuring the same,” Application No. 2008-183544, Dai Gil Lee, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang et al., 2008, JP Patent Pending.
“End plate for fuel cell stack and method for manufacuring the same,” Application No. 102008043827.8, Dai Gil Lee, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang et al., 2008, DE Patent Pending.
“End plate for fuel cell stack and method for manufacuring the same,” Application No. 200810179133.4, Dai Gil Lee, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang et al., 2008, CN Patent Pending.
“End plate for fuel cell stack and method for manufacuring the same,” Application No. 12/276,953, Dai Gil Lee, Ha Na Yu, Seong Su Kim, In Uk Hwang et al., 2008, US Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell stack assembly,” Application No. 12/218,113, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, US Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell stack assembly,” Application No. 102008040503.5, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, DE Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell stack assembly,” Application No. 2008-161645, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, JP Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell stack assembly,” Application No. 200810148883.5, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, CN Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell separator and method for manufacturing the same,” Application No. 102008041320.8, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, DE Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell separator and method for manufacturing the same,” Application No. 2008-172938, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, JP Patent Pending.
“Fuel cell separator and method for manufacturing the same,” Application No. 200810169548.3, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, et al., 2008, CN Patent Pending.
“Separating plate for fuel cell stack and method of manufacturing the same,” Application No. 12/394337, Sae Hoon Kim, Yoo Chang Yang, Sung Ho Lee, Jung Do Suh, Byung Ki Ahn, Tae Won Lim, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Byung Chul Kim, et al., 2009, US Patent Pending.
“Separating plate for fuel cell stack and method of manufacturing the same,” Application No. 102009001185.4, Sae Hoon Kim, Yoo Chang Yang, Sung Ho Lee, Jung Do Suh, Byung Ki Ahn, Tae Won Lim, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Byung Chul Kim, et al., 2009, DE Patent Pending.
“燃料電池スタック用分離板及びその製造方法,” Application No. 2009-044841, Sae Hoon Kim, Yoo Chang Yang, Sung Ho Lee, Jung Do Suh, Byung Ki Ahn, Tae Won Lim, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Byung Chul Kim, et al., 2009, JP Patent Pending.
“用干㦓料电池組的隔板及其制造方法,”Application No. 200910117832, Sae Hoon Kim, Yoo Chang Yang, Sung Ho Lee, Jung Do Suh, Byung Ki Ahn, Tae Won Lim, Dai Gil Lee, Seong Su Kim, Ha Na Yu, In Uk Hwang, Byung Chul Kim, et al., 2009, JP Patent Pending.
“Composite separator for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell and method for manufacturing the same”, Application No. 12/823,855, Dai Gil Lee, Ha Na Yu, Jun Woo Lim, Sae Hoon Kim, Jung Do Suh, Byung Ki Ahn, 2010, US Patent Pending.

matches:
Application No. 2008
Application No. 102008043827
Application No. 200810179133
Application No. 12
Application No. 12
Application No. 102008040503
Application No. 2008
Application No. 200810148883
Application No. 102008041320
Application No. 2008
Application No. 200810169548
Application No. 12
Application No. 102009001185
Application No. 2009
Application No. 12


text:
Gary Fisher retired from USGS in 2013 with 34 years of Federal service and nearly 40 years of professional hydrologist experience. He served as a project chief, supervisor, and manager ranging from local to national scope. His knowledge base includes surface-water hydrology and GIS, and he is a national expert in water web applications and database services.
Gary Fisher retired in 2013 as a hydrologist from the U.S. Geological Survey after 40 years of professional work, which included 32 years at USGS. He began Federal service in 1974 as an Engineering Technician with the USDA Agricultural Research Service in Beltsville, Maryland. From 1976-1979 he worked in hydrologic research at the University of Maryland and on flood insurance studies with a consulting engineer. He began working for USGS in 1979 as Assistant Project Chief on the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study in Baltimore, becoming Project Chief 2 years later. In 1984, he became Project Chief of another large runoff study, this time focusing on data collection and water-quality modeling of the Patuxent River Basin, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. This work included early applications of ARC-INFO GIS for hydrologic investigations. In 1989, he left USGS for 3 years to try his hand at GIS and environmental consulting, during which he managed the development of the first comprehensive modern GIS for the State of Maryland. He also taught classes in Water Resources Planning from 1987-1989. Gary returned to USGS in 1992 as the Surface-Water Specialist for the Potomac Unit of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA). In 1995, he became Chief of a new Automated Information Management Section for the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Water Science Center. During this time, he introduced use of the World-Wide Web for daily operations. He also became a member of SPIDER, which was doing the same for the Water Mission Area in USGS. From 1996-2006, he was Surface Water Specialist for the Water Science Center, which included many changes to operations, such as the proliferation of real-time data and the introduction of hydroacoustics. He received and tested one of the four original Sontek FlowTrackers in production. Also notable during this time was extensive tracking and media outreach during the major East Coast droughts of 1999 and 2002, including a presentation at the U.S. Capitol, and a Potomac River time-of-travel study in 2006. In 1999, he also became a co-PI in the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, an NSF-LTER, and continues to the present as a collaborator. In 2004-2005, he served as both Data Chief and Specialist for the Water Science Center. In 2006, he began a part-time detail to the Office of Water Information to lead the Automated Data Report Processing project, and in 2007 became full-time staff with that office. From 2007-2013, he chaired the National Water Information System (NWIS) Web User Group and led or coordinated other national projects sponsored by OWI, including the Site Information Management System (SIMS), Mobile Computing, WaterAlert, and WaterNow. Gary’s contributions helped NWISWeb to undergo significant growth and enhancements, serving more than 35 million requests per month in 2013. SIMS has become an essential part of USGS water site operations, as have Mobile Computing applications, and WaterAlert and WaterNow provide critical services to the public. A particularly significant contribution and career capstone was to lead the transition of the USGS Annual Water Data Report from paper to online products in 2006, and its replacement in 2014 with an equivalent product in NWISWeb.
Gary earned a B.S. and M.S. in Agricultural Engineering from Virginia Tech and the University of Maryland and is a Registered Professional Engineer in Maryland. During his career, he has authored or co-authored at least 30 publications, including a Water-Supply Paper, other USGS reports, and journal articles.
In retirement, Gary remains active with USGS as a Scientist Emeritus, pursuing both new projects and fine-tuning some old results, and continues to collaborate with the Baltimore Ecosystem Study.
Holtan, H.N., J.P. Ormsby, and G.T. Fisher. 1977. Application of a Maryland version of USDAHL-74 to a watershed in Prince Georges County, Maryland: Smithsonian Institution, Watershed Research in Eastern North America, Edgewater, Maryland, 1977, Proceedings, p. 887-908.
McCuen, R.H., W.J. Rawls, G.T. Fisher, and R.L. Powell. 1977. Flood flow frequency for ungaged watersheds - a literature evaluation: Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Northeast Regional Series No. ARS-NE-86, 136 p.
Fisher, G.T. 1978. Conversions and units in nonpoint source pollution: Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication No. 929, 10 p.
Fisher, G.T., J.E. Ayars, and G.K. Felton. 1978. Projecting the hydrologic impact of a land use plan using USDAHL-74: American Society of Civil Engineers, Legal, Institutional, and Social Aspects of Irrigation and Drainage and Water Resources Planning and Management, National Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1978, Proceedings, p. 256-265.
Ayars, J.E., G.T. Fisher, N.T. Martin, G.L. Conner, and R.D. Dixon. 1979. Instrumentation for surface runoff studies: Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Publication No. 942, 32 p.
Fisher, G.T., J.E. Ayars, H.N. Holton, and D.L. Nelson. 1979. USDAHL-74 as a planning tool: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Transactions, v. 22, no. 6, p. 1347-1352.
Fisher, G.T., and J.P. Ormsby. 1982. The application of remotely sensed observations to hydrologic models: in Application of results from representative and experimental basins, Paris, France, The UNESCO Press, p. 409-428.
Katz, B.G., and G.T. Fisher. 1982. Analysis and characterization of urban storm-water runoff from selected basins in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area - project plan: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-1200, 53 p.
Fisher, G.T., and B.G. Katz. 1982. Guidelines for instrumenting and operating a surface runoff study - the Baltimore experience: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper NAR82-209, 29 p.
Katz, B.K., and G.T. Fisher. 1983. A comparison of selected methods for measuring flow rate in a circular storm sewer: International Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Control, Lexington, Kentucky, 1983, Proceedings, p. 359-369.
Fisher, G.T. 1984. Procedures for mapping and grouping hydrologic response units using digitized data: Unpublished thesis, Master of Science, Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 146 p.
Fisher, G.T. and B.G. Katz. 1984. Analysis of urban storm-water runoff characteristics of four basins in the Baltimore metropolitan area, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4099, 51 p.
Hopkins, H.T., G.T. Fisher, and L.J. McGreevy. 1986. Reconnaissance of the ground-water, surface-water system in the Zekiah Swamp Run basin, Charles and Prince Georges Counties, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4097, 48 p.
Fisher, G.T, and R.M. Summers. 1987. Development of a data base for water-quality modeling of the Patuxent River basin, Maryland: American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 87-2046, 18 p.
Fisher, G.T., and B.G. Katz. 1988. Urban storm-water runoff -- selected background information and techniques for problem assessment, with a Baltimore, Maryland, case study: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2347, 30 p.
Fisher, G.T. 1989. Geographic information system-watershed model interface: American Society of Civil Engineers, Hydraulics Division Specialty Conference, New Orleans, La., 1989, Proceedings, 6 p.
Fisher, G.T., and T.M. Lewis. 1990. Estimation of drainage density and overland flow length using digital cartographic data: Application of Geographic Information Systems, Simulation Models and Knowledge Based Systems for Landuse Management, International Conference, Blacksburg, Va., Proceedings, 10 p.
Fisher, G.T. 1995. Selected herbicides in major streams in the Potomac River Basin upstream from Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 107-95, 4 p.
Blomquist, J.D., G.T. Fisher, J.M. Denis, J.W. Brakebill, and W.H. Werkheiser. 1996. Water-quality assessment of the Potomac River Basin: Basin description and analysis of available nutrient data, 1970-90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4221, 88 p.
Zappia, Humbert, and G.T. Fisher. 1997. Water-quality assessment of the Potomac River Basin: Analysis of available pesticide data, 1972-90: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4051, 80 p.
Tallman, A.J., and G.T. Fisher. 2001. Flooding in Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland From Hurricane Floyd, September 1999, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS 073-01, 6p.
Heisler, G.M., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, K. Belt, V. Fabiyi, G.T. Fisher, R.H. Grant, and S. Grimmond. 2000. A reference meteorological station for urban long-term ecological research, Baltimore Ecosystem Study. In: Third Urban Environment Symposium. Davis, CA. 14-18 Aug 2000. American Meteorological Society. Boston. p. 189-90.
Heisler, G.M., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, K.T. Belt, V. Fabiyi, G.T. Fisher, R.H. Grant, and C.S.B. Grimmond. 2000. A reference meterological station for urban long-term ecological research, Baltimore Ecosystem Study: Paper presented at Third Symposium on the Urban Environment, Davis, CA.
Fisher, G.T. 2000. Evolution of real-time streamflow data services in the U.S. Geological Survey: Poster HS023, Open Session on Hydrometry, European Geophysical Society XXV General Assembly, Nice, France, April 25, 2000.
Fisher, G.T. 2000. Overview of 1998-1999 drought impacts on water resources in the eastern United States: Poster HS050, Regional Analysis of Floods, Droughts and Low Flows, European Geophysical Society XXV General Assembly, Nice, France, April 27, 2000.
Belt, K.T., P.M. Groffman, G.T. Fisher, and L.E. Band. 2000. Stream chemistry patterns along an urban-rural gradient: preliminary results from the Baltimore Ecosystem Study an urban LTER site: Paper presented at Eos Trans AGU, Spring, Abstract H21A-05 30 May-3 June 2000, Washington, DC.
Doheny, E.J., and G.T. Fisher. 2000. Estimated flood frequency and corresponding water-surface elevations at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-461.
Belt, K.T., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, and G.T. Fisher. 2000. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and yields along an urban/rural gradient in the Gwynns Falls watershed. Paper presented at Maryland Water Monitoring Council 6th Annual Meeting; 1 December 2000, Maritime Institute, Linthicum, MD.
Band, L.E., K.T. Belt, P.M. Groffman, G.T. Fisher, D.E. Tennenbaum, and N.L. Law. 2000. Long term experimental watershed studies in the Baltimore Ecosystem Study: Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU, 81(48), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H51B-03; 15 December 2000, San Francisco.
Belt, K.T., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, N.L. Law, and G.T. Fisher. 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus fluxes in urban ecosystem watersheds: Paper presented at Eos Trans AGU, Spring, Abstract B52B-06 28 May 2002, Washington, DC.
Morlock, S.E. and G.T. Fisher. 2002. Hydroacoustic current meters for the measurement of discharge in shallow rivers and streams: Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods 2002, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Estes Park, Colorado.
Fisher, G.T. and S.E. Morlock. 2002. Discharge measurements in shallow urban streams using a hydroacoustic current meter: Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods 2002, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Estes Park, Colorado.
Fisher, G.T. 2003. Tidal hydrodynamics near a constructed wetland at Fort McHenry, Baltimore, Maryland: Sontek/YSI 2003 International Water Resources Users Conference, Henderson, Nevada, October 2-4, 2003.
Smith, J.A., M.L. Baeck, R.A. Fulton, G.T. Fisher, and A.J. Miller. 2002. Hydrometeorological analysis of flash floods in the Baltimore metropolitan region: Eos, Transactions AGU, v. 83, no. 47, H62A-0836.
Groffman, P.M., N.L. Law, K.T. Belt, L.E. Band, and G.T. Fisher. 2004. Nitrogen fluxes and retention in urban watershed ecosystems: Ecosystems, v. 7, p. 393-403.
Miller, A.J., J.A. Smith, C. Welty, K.N. Esleman, M. Piasecki, K.L. Prestegaard, K.L. Brubaker, M.A. Palmer, P.T. Imhoff, P.R. Wilcock, T.M. Scanlon, G.T. Fisher, R.J. Shedlock, A.C. Gellis, P.M. Groffman, K. Belt, L. Toran, R. Traver, and T. Jordan. 2004. The Potomac River basin and western shore Chesapeake Bay drainage as a proposed CUAHSI hydrologic observatory: Paper presented at Eos Trans. of the AGU, Fall Meet. Suppl., H31C-0382 INVITED 13 December 2004, San Francisco.
Kaushal, S.S., P.M. Groffman, G.E. Likens, K.T. Belt, W.P. Stack, V.R. Kelly, L.E. Band, and G.T. Fisher. 2005. Increased salinization of fresh water in the northeastern United States: PNAS (Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America), v. 102, p. 13517-13520.
Fisher, G.T. 2005. Status of hydroacoustics implementation in the USGS: Sontek/YSI International Water Resources Users Conference, Orlando, Florida, January 2005.
Heisler, G.M., J. Walsh, and G.T. Fisher. 2005. Accessing long term ecological research program climate and hydrology data: Paper presented at ESA Mid-Atlantic Chapter Ecology Conference; 12-13 March 2005, Baltimore, MD.
Smith, J.A., A.J. Miller, M.L. Baeck, P.A. Nelson, G.T. Fisher, and K.L. Meierdiercks. 2005. Extraordinary flood response of a small urban watershed to short-duration convective rainfall: Journal of Hydrometeorology. 6:599-617. doi:10.1175/JHM426.1.
Fisher, G.T. 2006. Future of the annual data report - Automated data report processing in the Water Resources Discipline: USGS 2006 National Data Conference, Sacramento, California.
Belt, K.T., C.M. Swan, R.V. Pouyat, S.S. Kaushal, P.M. Groffman, I. Turcsanyi, W.P. Stack, and G.T. Fisher. 2006. Altered hydrology and vegetation: effects on the transport and breakdown of organic matter in urban streams: Paper presented at Marine Estuarine Environmental Science 2006 Colloquium, Invited; 30 September 2006, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies, Appalachian Laboratory.
Belt, K.T., C.M. Swan, R.V. Pouyat, S.S. Kaushal, P.M. Groffman, W.P. Stack, and G.T. Fisher. 2006. Transport and breakdown of organic matter in urban and forested streams: the effects of altered hydrology and landscape position: Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract B23A-03; 24 May 2006, Baltimore, MD.
Bushey, J.T., P.M. Groffman, C.T. Driscoll, and G.T. Fisher. 2006. Mercury cycling and transport within Gwynns Falls, an urban watershed in Baltimore, MD. Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract B24A-03; 23-26 May 2006, Baltimore.
Shields, C.A., L.E. Band, P.M. Groffman, G.T. Fisher, and S.S. Kaushal. 2006. Temporal distribution of nitrogen loading: an urban-rural gradient?: Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl. B23A-07; 26 May 2006, Baltimore, MD.
Groffman, P.M., L.E. Band, R.V. Pouyat, K.T. Belt, G.T. Fisher, J.M. Grove, S.S. Kaushal, and P.M. Mayer. 2006. The bio-geo-socio-chemistry of urban watershed ecosystems: Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU, 87(36), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract U31A-02 Invited; 24 May 2006, Baltimore, MD.
Belt, K.T., W.P. Stack, R.V. Pouyat, G.T. Fisher, G. Heisler, and P.M. Groffman. 2006. Watershed 263 small headwater storm drain catchment hydrology: ultra urban hotspot?: Paper presented at Proceedings of the 2006 AWRA Annual Conference; 8 November 2006, Baltimore, MD.
Fisher, G.T., W.P. Stack, and K.T. Belt. 2006. Reflections on the Baltimore NURP results, 25 years later: American Water Resources Association 2006 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.
Fisher, G.T. 2006. Introducing the new USGS annual water data report: American Water Resources Association 2006 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.
Doheny, E.J., and G.T. Fisher. 2007. Hydraulic geometry characteristics of continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations on four urban watersheds along the main stem of Gwynns Falls, Baltimore County and Baltimore City, Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5190, 24 p.
Schmidt, M., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, G.T. Fisher, and N.L. Law. 2007. Exploring watersheds in Baltimore: Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Millbrook, NY.
Fisher, G.T. 2007. Hydroacoustic discharge and velocity measurements for estimation of travel time in rivers: Hydraulic Measurements and Experimental Methods 2007, Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Lake Placid, New York.
Kaushal, S.S., P.M. Groffman, L.E. Band, C.A. Shields, R.P. Morgan, M.A. Palmer, K.N. Eshleman, K.T. Belt, C.M. Swan, S.E.G. Findlay, and G.T. Fisher. 2008. Interaction between urbanization and climate variability amplifies watershed nitrate export in Maryland. Environmental Science & Technology. 42(16):5872-5878. doi:10.1021/es800264f.
Shields, C.A., L.E. Band, N.L. Law, P.M. Groffman, S.S. Kaushal, K. Savvas, G.T. Fisher, and K.T. Belt. 2008. Streamflow distribution of non-point source nitrogen export from urban-rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Water Resources Research. 44(W09416). doi:10.1029/2007WR006360.
Fisher, G.T., D.S. McCulloch, and E.E. Fischer. 2008. Online access to USGS water-resources data: 2008 National Water Quality Monitoring Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Fisher, G.T. 2008. Update on SIMS, RMS, and the ADR: USGS 2008 National Data Conference, Tunica, Mississippi.
Bushey, J.T., C.T. Driscoll, P.M. Groffman, S.S. Kaushal, E.F. Mason, C.B. Fuss, and G.T. Fisher. 2009. Mercury dynamics in an urban watershed ecosystem: Paper presented at Eos Trans. AGU, 90(22), Jt. Assem. Suppl., Abstract B13D-06, Toronto.
Fisher, G.T. 2009. Highlights from the Office of Water Information: Plenary presentation at the USGS 2009 National Data Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Fisher, G.T, and Y.E. Stoker. 2010. Where's the data? Improvements in access to USGS water data: 2010 National Water Quality Monitoring Conference, Denver, Colorado.
Groffman, P.M., L.E. Band, K.T. Belt, S.S. Kaushal, and G.T. Fisher. 2010. Long-term (10 year) trends in the chemistry of urban streams: Paper presented at Fall Meeting AGU, Abstract B41J-04; 16 December 2010, San Francisco, CA.
Fisher, G.T., Mark Hamill, et al. 2011. Update on USGS Water Data for the Nation (aka NWISWeb): USGS 2011 National Surface Water Conference, Tampa, Florida.
Fisher, G.T., B.D. Reece, D.R. Terry, and S.L. Vasquez. 2011. I Didn’t Know SIMS Could Do That…: USGS 2011 National Data Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Fisher, G.T. 2012. USGS Water Data for the Nation (NWISWeb) - An overview: Advisory Council on Water Information 2012 Annual Meeting, Herndon, Virginia.
Fisher, G.T. 2012. Highlights from the Office of Water Information: Plenary presentation at the USGS 2012 National Data Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Fisher, G.T. 2013. Role of agricultural engineers in the Water Mission Area of the U.S. Geological Survey: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Northeast Agricultural and Biological Engineering Conference, Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Fisher, G.T. 2014. Water data and related tools from the U.S. Geological Survey: Lecture at National Dam Safety Program Technical Seminar, Emergency Management Institute, Emmitsburg, Maryland, February 2014.

matches: v. V. V. v. v. v.


Protecting trust property from the claims of creditors and predators. In speaking of claims by creditors and predators against property held in trust, we normally hear about two major types of trusts, "Self-Settled Trusts" and "Third Party Trusts."
Self-Settled Trusts are trusts created where the Grantor (the person who creates the trust) is also a beneficiary of the trust. A Third Party Trust, on the other hand, is one where the Grantor establishes a trust for beneficiaries other than himself or herself (for example, for his or her spouse, children, and/or other descendants). Georgia law does not look kindly upon efforts of Settlors (the terms Settlor and Grantor are interchangeable) to defeat the claims of their own creditors by creating Self-Settled Trusts. For example, the Georgia Code states that "[d]uring the lifetime of the settlor, the property of a revocable trust shall be subject to the claims of the settlor's creditors." O.C.G.A. § 53-12-82(1). If the Settlor creates a Living Trust and makes it Irrevocable, the creditors of the Settlor may reach the "maximum amount that can be distributed to or for the settlor's benefit during the settlor's life or that could have been distributed to or for the settlor's benefit immediately prior to the settlor's death." O.C.G.A. § 53-12-82(2). Thus, even if the property in a Self-Settled Trust is placed in the hands of an independent Trustee with discretion, but not any obligation, to pay the assets back to the Settlor, the creditors of the Settlor can still reach the maximum amount that the Trustee could, in the full exercise of his or her discretion, pay to the Settlor.
After the death of a Settlor, "the property of a trust that was revocable at the settlor's death or had become irrevocable as the result of the settlor's incapacity, shall be subject to the claims of the settlor's creditors to the extent that the settlor's probate estate is inadequate" to pay the debts. O.C.G.A. § 53-12-82(3).
Thus, it is very difficult for a Settlor to transfer his or her assets to a trust which is Revocable (or Irrevocable but provides lifetime benefits to the Settlor) and put those assets beyond the reach of his or her own creditors.
Note, however, that Georgia law is far more favorable to a debtor who is a beneficiary of a trust (i.e., a debtor/beneficiary) in the case where the beneficiaries of such trust do not include the Settlor. Such trusts are called Third Party Trusts and include, for example, Testamentary Trusts that might be set up by a wife for her husband, children, and/or other descendants following her death.
Georgia law seeks to strike a fair balance between the claims of creditors and the right of a person to leave his or her assets only to persons he or she chooses. As described above, a Settlor cannot defeat his or her own creditors by transferring his or her assets to a Self-Settled Trust. However, in Third Party Trusts, the creditors of a beneficiary (who is not the Settlor) of such trust should not be able to seize assets which the beneficiary never directly owned and transferred.
With respect to a Third Party Trust, a Settlor may, in general, dispose of his or her property as he or she sees fit in a manner which shields the property from the claims of the beneficiaries' creditors. The property passing pursuant to a Third Party Trust was not originally the property of the beneficiary(ies) of such trust and, therefore, should not have to be available to pay the debts of the beneficiary(ies). The intent of the Settlor is paramount. If the Settlor does not wish for his or her property to be seized by the creditors of a third party beneficiary, then that intent generally will be respected if the instrument is properly drafted (because, in most circumstances, the Settlor has the right to benefit only the persons he or she chooses and has no duty or obligation to pay the debts of the beneficiary).
O.C.G.A. § 53-12-81 entitled Limitations on creditors' rights to discretionary distributions provides in pertinent part: "[a] transferee or creditor of a beneficiary shall not compel the Trustee to pay any amount that is payable only in the trustee's discretion regardless of whether the trustee is also a beneficiary." (Emphasis added.) This Section does not apply to the extent, if any, that a proportion of the trust property is attributable to the beneficiary's own contribution. To that extent, the beneficiary would be considered a Settlor.
Thus, if the Trustee has the sole discretion to determine whether a payment of income or principal may be made to a beneficiary and the Settlor is not the beneficiary, then the creditors of that beneficiary cannot reach the assets of the trust unless and until they are paid out to such beneficiary. Even in a Third Party Trust, however, the creditors of a non-Settlor beneficiary can reach the income or principal if the debtor/beneficiary has an absolute right to receive the distribution (for example, if the Trust does not leave it in the Trustee's discretion but rather requires that all income be paid to the beneficiary). In that event, the creditors can reach the income whether or not it is actually distributed. It should be noted again the interplay between the rights of creditors versus the right of a Settlor/decedent to leave property as he or she wishes: under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-81, the provision does not apply to the extent the beneficiary made a contribution of property (or is a Settlor) to the Trust.
[a] provision in a trust instrument that a beneficiary's interest shall terminate or become discretionary upon an attempt by the beneficiary to transfer it, an attempt by the beneficiary's creditors to reach it, or upon the bankruptcy or receivership of the beneficiary shall be valid except to the extent of the proportion of the trust property attributable to such beneficiary's contribution [i.e., to the extent the beneficiary becomes a Settlor].
In other words, even if the payment of income is mandatory in a Third Party Trust, a provision may be included in the instrument to terminate the distributions or change them from mandatory to discretionary if a beneficiary's creditor is looming. In this case, the provision could give the Trustee the discretion to pay such distributions to the beneficiary's spouse or children or to accumulate all or part of the income. In any event, the creditor could not reach the trust property except to the extent actually paid to the debtor/beneficiary.
If an individual does not wish to place assets in a trust for an extended period of time but is only concerned about attempting to thwart the claims of his or her own creditors and predators upon death, then under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-82 (3), the simple re-titling of assets or the naming of beneficiaries for assets may be sufficient to defeat the claims of a debtor's own creditors. This Section provides that "[p]ayments that would not be subject to the claims of a settlor's creditors if made by way of beneficiary designation to persons other than the settlor's estate shall not be made subject to such claims. . . . ." O.C.G.A. § 53-12-82(3). This means that, in those instances where beneficiaries are named or "designated" (such as on insurance policies, retirement plans, annuities, transfer on death accounts, payable on death accounts, joint tenancy with right of survivorship accounts, etc.), the assets will not be in the decedent's probate estate and will not, absent other circumstances, be subject to the claims of creditors of the deceased debtor. It should be kept in mind that, notwithstanding the above, if one wishes to avail himself or herself of the above-described planning techniques, he or she should engage in the planning prior to incurring the subject liability.
As will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent installment of this article, the person who makes the transfer of an asset (whether in trust, outright or by beneficiary designation) and desires to put it beyond the reach of his or her own creditors, must not run afoul of the UNIFORM VOIDABLE TRANSACTIONS ACT (the "Act"), O.C.G.A. 18-2-70 et. seq. (primarily §§18-2-74 and 18-2-75). In a nutshell, this Act provides that if a person (the transferor) transfers property to a donee by a gift or to a trust (or by beneficiary designation or retitling), with a specific intent of hindering or defeating a creditor, or if the transferor is rendered insolvent by the transfer, the transfer may be set aside by a court as a "voidable transfer" so the creditor can reach it. But, assuming one does not run afoul of this Act, assets transferred to a trust for a beneficiary receive a much broader level of protection against claims of that beneficiary's creditors. Thus, the time for an individual to engage in planning to insulate assets from the claims of creditors, is before those creditors appear on the horizon, and while the transferor is solvent.
The material in this publication was created as of the date set forth above and is based on laws, court decisions, administrative rulings and congressional materials that existed at the time, and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and the publication or transmission of it does not establish or constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Internal Revenue Service rules require that we advise that any tax advice contained in this article was not intended or written to be used by any person, and cannot be used by any person, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.


text:
Read all of the decisions issued by the Reviewing Board of the Department of Industrial Accidents in 2007.
George Dussault v. Ryder Systems, Inc.
John MacEachern v. Trace Construction Co.
Paul Levesque v. State Road Cement Block Co., Inc.
Joseph J. Rezendes v. City of New Bedford Water Dept.
Anna Diaz v. Professional Profiles, Inc.
Kelly Smith v. Charming Shoppes, Inc.
James M. Fedier v. Balise Motor Sales Co.
Reginald Eason v. Symmetricom Corp.
Alan Hamel v. Kidde Fenwal, Inc.
Steven Mills v. OM US Inc.
Michael W. Cox v. Fallon Services, Inc.
William Seymour v. U.S. Tsubaki, Inc.
Cheryl B. Lopes v. Lifestream, Inc.
Gary Harding v. Northern Mechanical Corp.
Bernadette Ruusukallio v. Toole Properties, Inc.
Robert B. Wilson v. M.P. Management Co.
Timothy Payton v. Saint Gobain Norton Co.
Cynthia Gosselin v. Springfield Wire Co.
Lawrence Dilisio v. R. Dilisio, Inc.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
The Complainants are Consitex S.A., Stabio, Switzerland; Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A., Biella, Italy; and Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation, New York, United States of America, represented by Studio Legale Jacobacci e Associati, Italy.
The disputed domain name <zegnasuits.com> was registered on August 11, 2005, with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 8, 2006. On February 8, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 9, 2006, Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March�5,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2006.
The Center appointed Isabel Davies as the sole panelist in this matter on March�17,�2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainants are: Consitex S.A., a Swiss company; Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A, an Italian company; and Emenegildo Zegna Corporation, a US company. The Complainants form part of the Zegna Group of companies.
The Zegna Group is internationally renowned as a manufacturer of goods within the field of fashion, including clothing shoes, tissue, fabrics (piece goods), fashion accessories, belts, watches, jewellery, fragrances, as well as providing services in the field of fashion fabrics.
- ZEGNA United States Registration number 941547, in classes 23, 25, registered August 2, 1972.
The disputed domain name is <zegnasuits.com>, which was registered with Intercosmos Media Group Inc d/b/a Directnic.com, on August 11, 2005. The domain name offers various websites for leisure activities, including travel, media and shopping. The shopping websites include sites for jackets and men’s suits.
The Complainants contend that the domain name <zegnasuits.com> is confusingly similar with the trade marks ZEGNA owned by the Complainants. One of the main products of the Zegna Group are suits for men. It is also alleged that the association between “Zegna” and “suits” evokes the name, fame and business of the Complainants.
The Complainants’ case is that the domain name in dispute incorporates the Complainants’ various Community, International and National trade marks for ZEGNA.
They state that the ZEGNA name and trade mark is world famous, as can be seen from conducting cursory Internet searches, including on Google and Altavista. In addition, they state that the ZEGNA brand and business has been the subject of a number of international press articles which establish the fame of the ZEGNA mark.
Whilst the Complainants are aware, in accordance with Consitex S.A., Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A., Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Mr. Christopher C. Gramly, 12 Galaxies, WIPO Case No. D2004-0416, regarding <zegnatronic.com>, that they have no right to a monopoly in respect of all permutations of the word ZEGNA, they contend that, in the present instance, given that the domain name combines its world famous ZEGNA brand together with “suits”, which is a description of one of Zegna’s core businesses, the domain name is likely to cause confusion.
The Complainants refer by analogy to a previous case involving the domain name <zegnasuit.com> (Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation, Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A., Consitex S.A v. Steven Shiekman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1375) in which the Panel found that the addition of “suits” to ZEGNA was insufficient to render the domain name sufficiently distinctive as from the ZEGNA trade mark. The Complainants’ contention is that, as in the aforementioned previous case, given the fact that ZEGNA is primarily used to cover items of clothing, the addition of “suit” elicits a direct reference to Zegna’s activities and trade marks and is therefore likely to cause not only confusion but also a likelihood of association in the minds of consumers who may therefore be induced into believing that <zegnasuits.com> is in some way connected to the Complainants.
The Complainants further allege that the Respondent could not have been unaware of its ZEGNA brand and trade marks given the notoriety and fame of its mark and that as such, the Respondent has registered the <zegnasuits.com> domain name in bad faith. In this regard, the Complainants refer to Banca Sella s.p.a v. Mr. Paolo Parente, WIPO Case No. D2000-1157; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fond�e en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226; and Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network, WIPO Case No. D2000-0137. The Complainants also contend that the fact that the Respondent has linked ZEGNA with the word “suits” is of itself evidence of its knowledge of the link between the ZEGNA brand and its activities and is therefore evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainants’ legal representatives have written notifying the Respondent of the Complainants’ rights. The Respondent has failed to respond to this correspondence to date.
The Complainants assert that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name.
The domain name is identical not only to the Complainants’ brand name but to numerous National, Community and International trade marks which are owned by one or more of the Complainants, some of which are referred to above. The combination of the Complainants’ world famous brand name ZEGNA and the word “suits”, which is part of the Complainants’ core business for which it had acquired an international reputation and with which it is associated, would lead users of the Internet to believe that the site is licensed by or in some way authorised by the Complainants. This is particularly the case, given that this domain name links to other websites offering clothing and fashion items, including, suits. For this reason, the Panel considers that the domain name is identical with the ZEGNA brand and the Complainants’ registered trade marks.
The Respondent has no connection with the Complainants in way; it is neither licensed nor authorised to use the Complainants’ trade marks. “Zegnasuits” is not the Respondent’s company name. The Respondent has failed to assert any rights in the domain name and has not provided any evidence to rebut the case established by the Complainant. In the absence of any such evidence, the Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The Panel considers that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could not have been aware of the ZEGNA brand at the time the domain name was registered given the worldwide reputation which the brand had acquired and the number of registered trade marks owned by the Complainants, which predate the registration of the domain name. The fact that the Respondent chose to link the words “Zegna” and “suits” is of itself a compelling indication that the Respondents were only too well aware of ZEGNA.
The Respondent has also continued to use the domain name to attract traffic notwithstanding that it has been notified of the Complainants’ rights by the Complainants’ legal representatives. The Respondent has failed to reply to the Complainants’ notifications. The Respondent has no reason to use the domain name. The domain name is in no way indicative of the goods being offered at the website linked to the domain name, save for certain links to websites advertising goods which directly compete with those of the Complainants. The Panel therefore concludes that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <zegnasuits.com> be transferred to the Complainants.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.


In a recent post, we pointed out that 18 U.S.C. § 922 criminalizes the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. To be charged and convicted under § 922, the felon must have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. This statute has three essential elements: (1) knowing possession of a firearm, (2) possession that is in or affecting commerce, and (3) the defendant has a prior conviction of a crime whose penalty was exceeded by a term of imprisonment of one year.
With respect to this statute, one of the questions the John T. Law Firm most frequently fields is whether a Texas deferred adjudication probation can be used to convict someone under this Federal law. Article 42.12 § 5(a), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, authorizes deferred adjudication for a defendant found guilty of certain crimes. The Texas Court of Criminal Procedure described this penalty as “a type of community supervision.” That’s because a judge, after a defendant enters a guilty plea or a plea of no contest and the judge finds evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the judge may “defer” further proceedings and place the defendant on community supervision without an “adjudication of guilt” being entered.
There are substantial benefits to a defendant stemming from a deferred adjudication proceeding. The primary benefit is that if the defendant successfully completes the period of community supervision without the judge making a finding of guilt, he has no conviction. Therefore, while there is a record of the arrest and the deferred adjudication, the defendant can legally report he has no conviction.
At least two federal courts have addressed the issue of whether a deferred adjudication can be used as the predicate conviction in a § 922 case: the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a deferred adjudication issued under Oklahoma law could not support a federal felon in possession prosecution, and likewise, a U.S. District Court in Maine found that a deferred adjudication under Texas law could not be used as a predicate conviction under the Federal gun statute.
The Fifth Circuit, however, has sort of been all over the map on the use of deferred adjudications. The appeals court has held that deferred adjudications can be considered a “prior conviction” under the both U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the appeals court has also held that since a deferred adjudication under Texas law is not a conviction, it cannot be used for impeachment purposes under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Similarly, the appeals court held a defendant truthfully stated on a firearm purchase form that he had no prior felony conviction given that he had successfully completed a deferred adjudication on a stolen vehicle charge.
We agree. The intent of Congress when it enacted § 922 was to allow the states to determine who will be subject to prosecution under this law. Thus, courts should consider the provisions of Art. 42.12 § 5(c) as overriding determinative factors in deciding whether a Texas deferred adjudication can be used in a § 922 case.
Our research failed to discover a case in which the Fifth Circuit addressed this precise issue head on. And until the U.S. Supreme Court squarely addresses the issue in a case involving a Texas deferred adjudication, we will remain convinced that a deferred adjudication is not a “conviction” for § 922 purposes.
However, our advice to concerned clients is that possessing firearms after successfully completing a deferred adjudication must be done responsibly and with caution, unless one risks becoming a test case under one of the federal government’s “get tough on crime” programs.


Below and above the thresholds, several types of procurement proceedings are available to the public sector. Below the thresholds, public tenders procedures still have the priority.
According to § 119 GWB above the thresholds, there are the open procedures, the restricted procedures, the negotiated procedures as well as the competitive dialogue and the innovation partnership.
For awards above the EU threshold, § 119 (2) GWB provides an equal ranking of open and not open proceedings. It is important to consider however, that pursuant § 119 (4) GWB, open proceedings require a preliminary qualification competition. The freedom of choice between the open and non-open upper threshold procedure should take into account the principles of transparency and competition.
The procedures above and below the thresholds differ slightly, so that they can be delineate together in the following lines.
According to § 119 (3) GWB, the open procedure are procedures whereby an unlimited number of undertakings is publicly invited to submit a tender.
This means that every interested company can apply for the awarding of the contract. It is a one-step process in which companies submit their proof of suitability and an offer at the same time.
This type of procedures is regulated in § 119 (4) GWB; these are procedures whereby a public invitation to participate is made and a limited number of undertakings from among the candidates is invited to submit a tender. It is a two-step process. The companies first prove their suitability by submitting the certificate of suitability. From this circle, the public sector requests at least five companies to tender, so that the competition for the provision of the service is limited to a particular group of bidders.
According to § 119 (5) GWB, negotiated procedures are procedures whereby the contracting entity consultants undertaking of its choice, with or without any prior public invitation to participate, to negotiate the terms of the contract with one or more of them. Unlike the open and restricted procedures, there is no ban on negotiation for these sorts of proceedings. The design of this procedure is at discretion of the public authority, which, however has to comply with the principle of public procurement law.
The competitive dialogue is a procedure for the award of particularly complex contracts by public contracting entities within the meaning of § 98 no. 1 to 3, so far as they are not active in the fields of drinking water or energy supply or transport, and § 98 no. 5. In this procedure an invitation to participate is made and selected undertakings are invited to negotiate all the details of the contract.
Here there is an invitation to participate, followed by negotiations with selected companies on all details of the order. The tenders will be based on jointly developed specifications, as the contracting authority will not be able to describe the service when it launches the procedure.
According to § 119 (7) GWB, in an innovation partnership (only for Europe-wide procurement procedures), the contracting authority negotiates the initial and follow-on offers of the competition in several phases with the selected companies.


Below is a listing of the DOJ Privacy Act implementing and exemption regulations. Each agency that maintains a system of records is required to promulgate certain rules in order to carry out the provisions of the Privacy Act. In addition, the head of any agency may promulgate rules to exempt certain system of records within the agency from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart D, "Protection of Privacy and Access to Individual Records Under the Privacy Act of 1974"
§16.41 Requests for access to records.
§16.42 Responsibility for responding to requests for access to records.
§16.43 Responses to requests for access to records.
§16.45 Appeals from denials of requests for access to records.
§16.46 Requests for amendment or correction of records.
§16.47 Requests for an accounting of record disclosures.
§16.50 Notice of court-ordered and emergency disclosures.
§16.51 Security of systems of records.
§16.52 Contracts for the operation of record systems.
§16.53 Use and collection of social security numbers.
§16.54 Employee standards of conduct.
§16.55 Other rights and services.
Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart E, "Exemption of Records Systems Under the Privacy Act"
§16.70 Exemption of the Office of the Attorney General System—limited access.
§16.71 Exemption of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General System—limited access.
§16.72 Exemption of Office of the Associate Attorney General System—limited access.
§16.73 Exemption of Office of Legal Policy System—limited access.
§16.74 Exemption of National Security Division Systems—limited access.
§16.75 Exemption of the Office of the Inspector General Systems/Limited Access.
§16.76 Exemption of Justice Management Division.
§16.77 Exemption of U.S. Trustee Program System—limited access.
§16.78 Exemption of the Special Counsel for Immigration-Related, Unfair Employment Practices Systems.
§16.79 Exemption of Pardon Attorney System.
§16.80 Exemption of Office of Professional Responsibility System—limited access.
§16.81 Exemption of United States Attorneys Systems—limited access.
§16.82 Exemption of the National Drug Intelligence Center Data Base—limited access.
§16.83 Exemption of the Executive Office for Immigration Review System—limited access.
§16.84 Exemption of Immigration Appeals System.
§16.85 Exemption of U.S. Parole Commission—limited access.
§16.88 Exemption of Antitrust Division Systems—limited access.
§16.89 Exemption of Civil Division Systems—limited access.
§16.90 Exemption of Civil Rights Division Systems.
§16.91 Exemption of Criminal Division Systems—limited access, as indicated.
§16.92 Exemption of Environment and Natural Resources Division Systems—limited access.
§16.93 Exemption of Tax Division Systems—limited access.
§16.96 Exemption of Federal Bureau of Investigation Systems—limited access.
§16.97 Exemption of Bureau of Prisons Systems—limited access.
§16.98 Exemption of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Systems—limited access.
§16.99 Exemption of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Systems-limited access.
§16.100 Exemption of Office of Justice Programs—limited access.
§16.101 Exemption of U.S. Marshals Service Systems—limited access, as indicated.
§16.102 Exemption of Drug Enforcement Administration and Immigration and Naturalization Service Joint System of Records.
§16.103 Exemption of the INTERPOL-United States National Central Bureau (INTERPOL-USNCB) System.
§16.104 Exemption of Office of Special Counsel—Waco System.
§16.105 Exemption of Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force System.
§16.106 Exemption of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—Limited Access.
§16.130 Exemption of Department of Justice Systems: Correspondence Management Systems for the Department of Justice (DOJ-003); Freedom of Information Act, Privacy Act and Mandatory Declassification Review Requests and Administrative Appeals for the Department of Justice (DOJ-004).
§16.131 Exemption of Department of Justice (DOJ)/Nationwide Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), DOJ-005.
§16.132 Exemption of Department of Justice System—Personnel Investigation and Security Clearance Records for the Department of Justice (DOJ), DOJ-006.
§16.133 Exemption of Department of Justice Regional Data Exchange System (RDEX), DOJ-012.
§16.134 Exemption of Debt Collection Enforcement System, Justice/DOJ-016.
§16.135 Exemptions of Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces Systems.
§16.136 Exemption of the Department of Justice, Giglio Information System, Justice/DOJ-017.


text:
2008-08-20 Assigned to INNVOTEC SURGICAL, INC. reassignment INNVOTEC SURGICAL, INC. ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS). Assignors: GROTZ, M.D., R. THOMAS, PRETTI, RUDY A.
A spinal implant which is configured to be deployed between adjacent vertebral bodies. The implant has at least one fixation element with a retracted configuration to facilitate deployment of the implant and an extended configuration so as to engage a surface of an adjacent vertebral body and secure the implant between two vertebral bodies. Preferably, the implant is expandable and has a minimal dimension in its unexpanded state that is smaller than the dimensions of the neuroforamen through which it must pass to be deployed within the intervertebral space. Once within the space between vertebral bodies, the implant can be expanded so as to engage the endplates of the adjacent vertebrae to effectively distract the anterior disc space, stabilize the motion segments and eliminate pathologic spine motion. Angular deformities can be corrected, and natural curvatures restored and maintained.
The invention relates to devices and methods for stabilizing the vertebral motion segment. More specifically, the field of the invention relates to an expandable spinal implant with fixation elements to fix the implant within an intervertebral space while providing controlled spinal correction in three dimensions for improved spinal intervertebral body distraction and fusion.
A conventional spine cage or implant is characterized by a kidney bean shaped body which is typically inserted in tandem posteriorly through the neuroforamen of the distracted spine after a trial implant creates a pathway. Existing devices for interbody stabilization have important and significant limitations, including inability to expand and distract the endplates while fixing the device to prevent relative movement between the device and an adjacent vertebral body. Current devices for interbody stabilization include static spacers composed of titanium, PEEK, and high performance thermoplastic polymer produced by VICTREX, (Victrex USA Inc, 3A Caledon Court; Greenville, S.C. 29615), carbon fiber, or resorbable polymers. Moreover, current interbody spacers do not maintain interbody lordosis and can contribute to the formation of a straight or even kyphotic segment and the clinical problem of “flatback syndrome.” Separation of vertebral endplates increases space available for the neural elements, specifically the neural foramen. Existing static cages do not reliably improve space for the neural elements. Therefore, what is needed is a spinal implant that will provide space for the neural elements posteriorly between the vertebral bodies, or at least maintain the natural bone contours to avoid neuropraxia (nerve stretch) or encroachment.
Conventional devices for intervertebral body stabilization includes poor interface between bone and the biomaterial of the device. Conventional static interbody spacers form a weak interface between bone and biomaterial. Although the surface of such implants is typically provided with a series of ridges or coated with hydroxyapetite, the ridges may be in parallel with applied horizontal vectors or side-to-side motion. That is, the ridges or coatings on the implant offer little resistance to movement applied to either side the endplates. Thus, nonunion is common in allograft, titanium and polymer spacers, due to motion between the implant and host bone.
This invention is generally directed to a spinal implant for insertion between superior and inferior vertebral end plates after partial or total removal of a spinal disc. The spinal implant embodying features of the invention is easily installed and is capable of holding the vertebral or joint sections with increased pullout strength to minimize the chance of implant fixation loss during the period when the implant is becoming incorporated into the arthrodesis bone block.
More specifically, the invention is particularly directed to a spinal implant which has one or more extendable fixation elements that engage or penetrate vertebral end plates and prevent movement between the implant and the vertebral end plates after implantation. The one or more expandable fixation elements have a contracted configuration within the implant so as to not interfere with the insertion of the implant between vertebral bodies and have an extended configuration with a distal tip extending beyond the surface of the implant to engage the vertebral end plates after implantation and fix the position of the implant with respect to the adjacent vertebral body. The fixation element may be extended in a variety of ways such as with fluid pressure, e.g. hydraulic fluid, by mechanical force, such as a threaded connection with a rotating driving member or other suitable means. Fluidic displacement is preferred. The distal tip of the fixation element should be sharp enough to penetrate into the vertebral end plate.
Preferably, the spinal implant embodying features of the invention is an expandable spinal implant such as the selectively expanding spine cage described in copending application Ser. No. 11/535,432, filed on Sep. 26, 2006 and Ser. No. 11/692,800, filed on Mar. 28, 2007, which provides restoration of disc height between adjacent vertebrae and can provide corrective spinal alignment in a plurality of dimensions. Preferably, the implant has an interior cavity for receiving osteoconductive material to promote the formation of new bone in the intervertebral space subsequent to implanting.
A spinal implant having features of the invention has a base including a first pressure applying member such as an end plate with a first bone engaging surface, at least one extendable member cooperating with the base and a second upper pressure applying member with a second bone engaging surface coupled to the at least one extendable member. The one or more extendable fixation elements are configured to extend through passageways provided in the second upper pressure applying member and beyond the bone engaging surface thereof to penetrate into the adjacent vertebral end plate and fix the implant with respect the vertebral body. Preferably, the fixation elements are slidably disposed within recesses within the extendable members.
The selectively expanding spine cage (SEC) or spinal implant embodying features of the invention is particularly suitable for posterior insertion between superior and inferior vertebral end plates as described in the aforementioned copending application Ser. Nos. 11/535,432 and 11/692,800. The SEC has an unexpanded configuration which allows easy deployment and is typically about 0.8 to about 1 cm in maximum short transverse dimension so as to enable minimal invasive insertion posteriorly between vertebral pedicles through a working space of approximately 1 cm in diameter. The extended fixation element extends beyond the tissue engaging surface of the second pressure applying member by at least 0.1 cm, preferably at least 0.25 cm to ensure proper engagement or contact with the end plate of the vertebral body and preferably penetration thereof.
In one preferred embodiment, at least one and preferably all of the extendable members of the SEC have an extendable fixation element disposed within a recess in the extendable member. In this embodiment, the implant is preferably fluid activated so the extendable members expand the SEC after implantation and be properly positioned between the adjacent vertebral bodies. Additionally, the fixation member is also extended by fluid pressure with or after expansion of the SEC. Preferably, the fluid expansion is by hydraulic fluid from a master cylinder or a syringe located remotely from the patient to enable controlled spinal correction in multiple dimensions and fixation of the SEC in a proper position. Individual cylinders or syringes may also be employed. Advantageously, the hydraulic fluid is a time-controlled curable polymer, such as methylmethacrylate, which has a viscosity and curing time that can be adjusted by the formulation of an appropriate added catalyst, as is well known. When the polymer cures, it hardens and locks the expanded expandable members and the expanded fixation element in position to provide the desired amount of anterior/posterior, medial/lateral, superior/inferior spinal correction immovably in place. Mechanical locking of the expandable members and/or the fixation elements may also be employed.
Once inserted between vertebral endplates, the implant advantageously can be expanded with a minimum of force exerted remotely through the hydraulic control lines. The expansion of the implant advantageously is about 20% to about 100% greater than the unexpanded height thereof, typically about 60%. Typical expansion is about 13 mm in the case of a 8 mm implant and about 16 mm in the case of a 10 mm implant.
Since the vertebral end plates are held together at one (the anterior) end by a ligament much like a clamshell, as the implant expands against the vertebral end plates, the amount of vertical expansion can be adjusted to create the desired anterior/posterior correction angle.
Left and right lateral correction of the spine is achieved by differential vertical expansion of the two or more extendable members of the implant. Each extendable member is preferably independently controlled by a master cylinder or syringe located ex vivo (away from the patient) and communicating hydraulically with the slave cylinders for moving the pistons and top plate vertically and laterally for correcting spinal deformities anteriorly or posteriorly, medial or lateral, thus available to provide spinal correction in three dimensions.
A minimally invasive downsized insertion tool both inserts the unexpanded SEC posteriorly and houses the hydraulic lines communicating between the master cylinder and the slave cylinder. The insertion tool also houses a line for communicating the liquid or slurry bone graft material to the slave cylinder and into the intervertebral space for subsequent fusion. Advantageously, the hydraulic lines are small size tubing to allow for high hydraulic pressure without danger of the lines bursting. The sizes of the slave cylinders and pistons can be varied to increase the mechanical advantage.
The hydraulic control system provides a minimally invasive procedure by enabling the surgeon to apply a controlling force away from the patient's body to expand and adjust the spinal implant in three dimensions. Preferably, the expansion is infinitely adjustable to provide a variety of height and lateral angles, and is not limited to incremental positions. The implant can be used to promote fusion, and/or to correct deformities such as scoliosis, kyphosis, and spondylolisthesis.
The clinical goals of the SEC and the method for its insertion provide a minimally invasive risk of trauma to nerve roots, reduce pain, improve function, and permit early mobilization of the patient after fusion surgery. The fixation elements maintain the implant in a desired position until healing (fusion or arthrodesis) occurs. At this point, the implant is incorporated inside bone and its role becomes quiescent. The present SEC provides more internal and external graft bone space exposure, easier and safer directed insertion, less risk of insertional damage to nerve roots and other tissue, and thus provide substantially improved immediate and long term results.
Thus, a key feature of the invention is that an essentially incompressible implant can be inserted posteriorly between vertebral pedicles in only a 1 cm working space. The implant then can be expanded to about 100% to about 200%, typically about 160%, of its original insertion size to provide a closely controlled full range of spinal correction in three dimensions. The one or more expandable fixation elements or spikes ensure that the implant remains in place after deployment. These and other advantages of the invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description and the accompanying exemplary drawings.
FIG. 1 depicts placement of an SEC embodying features of the invention between adjacent lumbar vertebrae.
FIG. 2 is a front perspective view of the SEC shown in FIG. 1 in an unexpanded state prior to deployment.
FIG. 3 is a sectional view of the SEC shown in FIG. 2.
FIG. 4 is a front perspective view of the SEC of similar to that shown in FIG. 2 in an expanded configuration.
FIG. 5 is a partial sectional view of the expanded SEC shown in FIG. 4 in place adjacent to a vertebral body with the pointed ends of a fixation member penetrating the surface of the vertebral body.
FIG. 1 illustrates location of spinal implant or SEC 10 between adjacent lumbar vertebrae in an expanded configuration. A partial or complete discectomy is performed prior to the insertion of the spinal implant 10 in a conventional manner. The SEC 10 is introduced in its unexpanded state to enable it to be inserted posteriorly with minimal trauma to the patient and risk of injury to nerve roots. Once in place the SEC 10 can be expanded to provide both medial and lateral spinal correction. The SEC has an unexpanded height of about 5 to about 15 mm, typically about 10 mm and is expandable to at least 130% to about 180% of the unexpanded height. Typically the SEC is about 9 to about 15 mm, typically about 12 mm wide and about 25 to about 40 mm, typically about 28 mm long to facilitate posterior insertion and thereby minimize trauma to the patient and risk of injury to nerve roots.
FIG. 2 illustrate the SEC 10 in a closed or unexpanded configuration and FIG. 3 illustrates the SEC 10 in an expanded configuration in section or cutaway view to shown the interior structure.
FIG. 4 illustrates the SEC 10 in an expanded configuration.
As shown in these figures, the SEC 10 has a base 12 with a pressure applying end member or plate 13 having a surface 14 for engaging an end surface of an adjacent vertebral body. Extendable support members 15 and 16 cooperate with the base 12. A second end pressure applying member or plate 17 is coupled to the extendable support members 15 and 16 so that the plate 17 moves with the extension of extendable support members 15 and 16. The plate 17 may be fixed to only one of the extendable support member but also engageable with the other extendable support member. Ball shaped connections 24 and 25 between plate 17 and support members 15 and 16 may be employed as shown in FIG. 3. Each extendable support member may have a separate end plate fixed thereto. As shown in more detail in FIG. 3, the extendable support members 15 and 16 are provided with fixation elements or spikes 18 and 19 which are slidably disposed within the bores 20 and 21 of extendable support members 15 and 16. The spikes 18 and 19 are provided with enlarged bases 22 and 23 which provide a seal with the bores 20 and 21. The seal allows extension of the spikes 18 and 19 to be extended with the same pressurized hydraulic fluid (not shown) which extends the extendable support members 15 and 16. The spikes 18 and 19 are provided with pointed distal tips 22 and 23 which extend through passageways 20 and 21 provided in the end pressure plate 17 to ensure contact between the spikes and the adjacent vertebral body as shown in FIG. 5 so as to fix the SEC 10 within the space between the adjacent vertebral bodies. In FIG. 5, the SEC 10 is shown in the expanded configuration. The SEC 10 has a central cavity 27 for infusion of bone graft material into the intervertebral space when the SEC is fully expanded or during the expansion process.
Additional details of the SEC such as the attachment of hydraulic lines and lines for transmission of a slurry or liquid bone graft material, device and hydraulic fluid delivery accessories and the like can be found in co-pending application Ser. No. 11/535,432 filed on Sep. 26, 2006 and Ser. No. 11,692,800, filed on Mar. 28, 2007, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Since vertebral end plates are held together at one end by a ligament much like a clamshell, expansion of the device 10 against the end plates of adjacent vertebral bodies can be adjusted to create the desired anterior/posterior correction angle.
The hydraulic fluid used to expand the SEC 10 and to extend the spikes 18 and 19 may advantageously be a time-controlled curable polymer such as methylmethacrylate. The viscosity and curing time of such a polymer can be adjusted by the formulation with an appropriate added catalyst as is well known. Such catalysts are available from LOCTITE Corp., 1001 Trout Brook Crossing, Rocky Hill, Conn. 06067. When the polymer cures, it hardens and locks the extendable members 15 and 16 and the spikes 18 and 19 in a desired position to provide the desired amount of spinal correction determined by the physician. Other means may be employed to lock the extendable members and the spikes in a desired position. For example, spring actuated locking fingers may be provided in the bore of one or more of the pistons and one or more of the bores of the spikes which extend outwardly when the piston or spike pass their respective locations upon extension thereof.
It will be appreciated that the SEC, including its various components should be formed of biocompatible, substantially incompressible material such as titanium, and preferably type 6-4 titanium alloy or other suitable materials which will allow for long term deployment within a patient.
The extension of extendable members 15 and 16 are preferably individually controlled so that the physician is able to provide a controlled angle of the SEC corrective surface. While only two extendable members are described herein, the SEC 10 may be provided with three or more individually extendable members so that the physician can exercise three-dimensional control of the SEC extension.
The SEC 10 embodying features of the invention provides advantages that include correction of coronal plane deformity; introduction of interbody lordosis, early stabilization of the interbody space with rigidity that is greater than present spacer devices and the ability to fix the SEC within the intervertebral space. This early stability may improve post-operative pain, preclude the need for posterior implants including pedicle screws, and improve the rate of successful arthrodesis. Importantly, the SEC provides improvement of space available for the neural elements while improving lordosis. As infused osteoinductive/osteoconductive bone graft materials heal, the patient becomes well and the implant becomes inert and quiescent, embedded in bone, and no longer needed.
For example, the SEC 10 described herein is expanded by hydraulic fluid. Other expansion means may be employed. For example, a screw mechanism may be employed to expand the SEC and to extend one or more of the spikes into engagement with adjacent vertebral surfaces. Additionally, the spikes which help fix the SEC within the vertebral space are described herein as being extended with the extendable support members. However, the spikes may be slidably disposed in separate bores and extended by means independent of the expansion means of the extendable support members.
Further, the SEC can be provided with load or pressure sensors that register differential pressure and pressure intensity exerted on the engaging surfaces of the SEC by the patient's vertebrae end plates to generate corrective signals, for example by computer control, that are used, e.g. by the surgeon or by a computer controlled mechanism to realign the patient's spine. The invention may further include a system that makes these adjustments, responsive to sensor signals, in real time and on a continual basis, such that the shapes of the implant changes to realign the patient's spine or mechanism. Preferably, such system is contemplated for use in setting the positions of the pistons during installation of the implant.
Furthermore, the SEC needs not be rigidly locked into position but may be provided with yieldable material to provide some movement of the end surfaces of the SEC to accommodate spinal movement.
wherein the second surface includes an opening for the at least two extendable fixation elements to extend therethrough at a plurality of angles relative to the second surface.
2. The implant of claim 1 wherein the first surface for engaging the first vertebral body includes a base member and the second surface for engaging the second vertebral body includes a pressure applying member.
3. The implant of claim 2 wherein at least two support members cooperate with the base and are coupled to the pressure applying member.
4. The implant of claim 3 wherein the pressure applying member has at least one passageway through which the distal tip of each said fixation element extends to engage the second vertebral body.
5. The implant of claim 3 wherein each support member is adapted to be extended.
6. The implant of claim 5 wherein each support member is adapted to be extended by fluid.
7. The implant of claim 6 wherein the fluid is hydraulic fluid.
8. The implant of claim 5 wherein each extendable fixation element is extendable with respect to a support member.
9. The implant of claim 5 wherein each extendable fixation element is extendable independent of a support member.
10. The implant of claim 5 wherein the extendable fixation element is slidably disposed within a bore of an extendable member.
11. The implant of claim 10 wherein the extendable fixation elements are extended by hydraulic fluid within the bore of the extendable member.
the support members each define an internal cylinder configured to sealingly receive the extendable fixation elements.
13. The implant of claim 12 wherein at least two of the extendable support members are adapted to be independently extended.
14. The implant of claim 12 wherein the support members are coupled to the pressure applying member with ball shaped connections.
15. The implant of claim 14 wherein at least two of the support members define bores extending from the internal cylinders and the extendable fixation elements extend through said bores.
16. The implant of claim 1 wherein the extendable fixation elements are adapted to be extended by fluid.
17. The implant of claim 10 wherein the fluid is hydraulic fluid.
18. The implant of claim 17 wherein the hydraulic fluid comprises a curable polymer having a fluid state for providing hydraulic communication of mechanical force to extend the fixation elements to engage a vertebral body.
19. The implant of claim 18 wherein the polymer is cured to a solid state to lock the extended fixation element to hold the spinal implant in the space between vertebral bodies.
20. The implant of claim 19 wherein the polymer comprises methyl methacrylate.
wherein the pressure applying plate includes an opening for the first and second fixation elements to extend therethrough at a plurality of angles relative to the pressure applying plate.
said pressure applying plate has an outer surface opposite the central cavity configured for engaging a surface of a vertebral body.
23. The spinal implant of claim 22, wherein said extendable members and extendable fixation elements are extendable by fluid pressure exerted within said cylinders.
24. The spinal implant of claim 21, wherein the central cavity is configured for infusion of bone graft material into an intervertebral space.
Advisory Action dated May 19, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Amendment After Final Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Examination Report dated Jul. 17, 2012, in European Patent Application No. 09712948.0.
Examination Report dated Oct. 18, 2011 in related EU Application No. 08727082.3 in the name of CoAlign Innovations, Inc.
Extended European Search Report for Application No. 11787340.6 dated Jun. 25, 2014.
Extended European Search Report for Application No. EP14159619 dated Jun. 12, 2014.
Final Office Action dated Feb. 1, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Final Office Action dated Jan. 2, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Final Office Action dated Jun. 19, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, filed Oct. 31, 2007.
Final Office Action dated Mar. 2, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Final Office Action dated Oct. 30, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
First Office Action dated Mar. 6, 2013, in connection with related Chinese Patent Application No. 200980106122.6 filed Feb. 17, 2009.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dale mailed Jun. 5, 2009 for related PCT/US2009/000974.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Apr. 10, 2008, in related International Application No. PCT/US2007/079474.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 13, 2010, in related International Application No. PCT/US2009/067446 filed Dec. 10, 2009.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 30, 2009, in related International Application No. PCT/US2008/003776 filed Mar. 21, 2008.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 6, 2009. In related International Application No. PCT/US2009/000974 filed Feb. 17, 2009.
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Nov. 11, 2010, in International Application No. PCT/US2010/031247 entitled "Insertion Handle for Implant."
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 22, 2011, in International Application No. PCT/US2011/037929.
International Search Report of PCT/US2009/000974 mailed Jun. 5, 2009.
Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 13, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 3, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Notice of Allowance dated Feb. 23, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622, filed Apr. 7, 2009.
Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 22, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 9, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, filed Oct. 31, 2007.
Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2011, in related CN Application No. 200880016846.7, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Office Action dated Apr. 5, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Office Action dated Apr. 9, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Office Action dated Aug. 31, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622, entitled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Office Action dated Dec. 27, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/799,047, filed Mar. 13, 2013.
Office Action dated Feb. 11, 2013, in connection with related European Patent Application No. 08727082.3 filed Mar. 21, 2008.
Office Action dated Jan. 6, 2014, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/486,679, filed Jun. 1, 2012.
Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Office Action dated Jun. 1, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 13/183,080, filed Jul. 14, 2011.
Office Action dated Jun. 20, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 13/311,487, filed Dec. 5, 2011.
Office Action dated Jun. 26, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Office Action dated Mar. 31, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,452 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Office Action dated May 2, 2013, in connection with related Japanese Patent Application No. 2010-547621 filed Feb. 17, 2009.
Office Action dated Sep. 16, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, filed Mar. 28, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Preliminary Amendment dated Dec. 11, 2009 in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, titled "Hydraulically Actuated Expanding Spine Cage with Extendable Locking Anchor."
Preliminary Amendment dated Dec. 4, 2007 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Preliminary Amendment dated Oct. 31, 2007 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, filed Oct. 31, 2007, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Preliminary Amendment dated Oct. 31, 2007 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,452, filed Oct. 31, 2007, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Related International Application No. PCT/US2008/003776 filed Mar. 21, 2008, in the name of Innvotec Surgical, Inc., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Related International Application No. PCT/US2009/00974 filed Feb. 17, 2009, in the name of Innvotec Surgical, Inc., titled "Spinal Implant with Expandable Fixation."
Related International Application No. PCT/US2009/067446 filed Dec. 10, 2009, in the name of Innvotec Surgical, Inc., titled "Lockable Expanding Spine Cage."
Related International Application No. PCT/US2011/037929 filed May 25, 2011, entitled "Adjustable Distraction Cage With Linked Locking Mechanisms."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, filed Sep. 26, 2006, in the name of Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, filed Mar. 28, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, filed Oct. 31, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,452, filed Oct. 31, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/380,840, filed Mar. 4, 2009, in the name of Philip J. Simpson et al., titled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622, filed Apr. 7, 2009, in the name of Philip J. Simpson et al., titled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009, in the name of Murali Kadaba et al., titled "Hydraulically Actuated Expanding Spine Cage with Extendable Locking Anchor."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010, in the name of John E. Ashley et al., titled "Adjustable Distraction Cage with Linked Locking Mechanism."
Related U.S. Appl. No. 13/183,080, filed Jul. 14, 2011, in the name of Thomas Grotz et al., entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Response to Final Office Action dated Dec. 31, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Response to Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Response to Final Office Action dated Mar. 23, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Response to Final Office Action dated May 2, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Response to Final Office Action dated Oct. 18, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, filed Oct. 31, 2007.
Response to Office Action dated Dec. 16, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, filed Mar. 28, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Response to Office Action dated Dec. 16, 2010, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Response to Office Action dated Jul. 5, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/981,150, entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Response to Office Action dated Nov. 18, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622, filed Apr. 7, 2009.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 15, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 15, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/183,080, filed Jul. 14, 2011.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/311,487, filed Dec. 5, 2011.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 4, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 9, 2012, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Response to Office Action dated Oct. 9, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Response to Office Action dated Sep. 26, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Jan. 6, 2014, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/843,390, filed Mar. 15, 2013.
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Jun. 6, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622 entitled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Mar. 12, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Mar. 27, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Response to Restriction Requirement dated Mar. 31, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Restriction Requirement dated Apr. 4, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/384,622 entitled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Restriction Requirement dated Dec. 4, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 13/843,390, filed Mar. 15, 2013.
Restriction Requirement dated Feb. 27, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,281, filed May 25, 2010.
Restriction Requirement dated Jan. 10, 2012, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260 entitled "Hydraulically Actuated Expanding Spine Cage with Extendable Locking Anchor."
Restriction Requirement dated Mar. 17, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Restriction Requirement dated May 2, 2011, in related U.S. Appl. No. 12/380,840 entitled "Lockable Spinal Implant."
Second Preliminary Amendment dated Mar. 18, 2008 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Supplemental Response to Final Office Action dated Jan. 4, 2013, in connection with related U.S. Appl. No. 12/548,260, filed Aug. 26, 2009.
Terminal Disclaimer dated Dec. 16, 2010 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800, filed Mar. 28, 2007, in the name of R. Thomas Grotz et al., titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Terminal Disclaimer dated Dec. 16, 2010, in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/692,800 entitled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Vertebral Body Replacement."
Third Preliminary Amendment dated Aug. 7, 2008 in related U.S. Appl. No. 11/535,432, titled "Selectively Expanding Spine Cage, Hydraulically Controllable in Three Dimensions for Enhanced Spinal Fusion."
Translated Second Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2012 in related China Application No. 200880016846.7.
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority of PCT/US2009/000974 mailed Jun. 5, 2009.

matches:
Application No. 09712948
Application No. 08727082
Application No. 11787340
Application No. 200980106122
Application No. 200880016846
Application No. 08727082
Application No. 2010
Application No. 200880016846