Exhibit 5-5

Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Neutral)

Re: / Patentability Search re
Our File No.

Dear:

In accordance with your request, we had a patentabilty study conducted for the above-identified invention. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude the invention is novel. However, in view of the Patent Office’s current position regarding patentability, we estimate there is 50/50 chance of being able to persuade the Patent Office that the invention is unobvious.

The Search

The search was directed to a device that.... With reference to the enclosed figure, the device 10 comprises a....

Search Result

Our searcher developed the following references, a single copy of each of which is enclosed:

...

Of particular interest is Smith, U.S. Patent No.... and Japanese Document....

Smith is directed to....

The Japanese reference....

Legal Standard

To be patentable, a device must be useful, novel (i.e., new), and non-obvious. Since the utility of your invention would not be disputed, the main issues are novelty and non-obviousness.

The non-obviousness requirement is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103, which states in pertinent part:

A patent may not be obtained... if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

======5EX-14======

The U.S. Patent Office recently provided guidelines to the examiners with regard to how to apply the obviousness test. Those guidelines state:

(A) / The claimed invention combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) / The claimed invention simply substitutes one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) / The claimed invention uses a known technique to improve similar devices (or methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) / The claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (or method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) / The claimed invention is “Obvious to try”—i.e., it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) / Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
(G) / There is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.

Analysis

No single reference teaches all the elements of your invention, and therefore it is novel.

With regard to the nonobvious standard, there is a possibility an examiner in the Patent Office could take the position that it would be obvious to modify the Smith device by incorporating... into the device as taught by the Japanese reference. A contrary argument would be there would be absolutely no use for such... in the Smith device and....

Presently only about 50% of patent applications are being allowed. It is our opinion that this invention fits right in the middle. An examiner could combine the references to conclude the invention as obvious. However, we have at least the counter argument I presented above.

Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, we conclude there is about a 50% chance of obtaining patent protection on your invention. If you asked me the chances three years ago, I would have stated the chances were about 70%. However, the Patent Office recently has made it more difficult to obtain a patent.

======5EX-15======

Please consider the enclosed notice regarding limitations of patentability/novelty searches.

If you wish to proceed with a patent application or have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures

1. / Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002).
*. / Annotations—seesection 5:5.5in text.