COMMISSIONER LEHMAN:  Brian Foley, please.
 
       MR. FOLEY:  Good afternoon.  Brian Foley, and on
       behalf of McGovern & Associates, Greenwich, Connecticut.  My
       comments today will be limited to the effect of the patent
       term extension as a result of Section 156, on the question
       of whether a patent in force on June 8, 1995, as a result of
       such extension should have the extension added onto the
       longer of the 17- or 20-year patent term.
 
       In light of some earlier comments, I think I can
       be relatively brief.
 
       First, PTO's assumption is correct that the
       patents in force on June 8, 1995, are entitled to the longer
       of the 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the
       date of the filing of the application.
 
       Second, the URAA uses the language, "patents in
       force," and does not distinguish the rights of the patent
       holder whose patent is in force on June 8, 1995, due to an
       extension under Section 156, in any way.
 
       Thus, it is clear that the intent is to treat
       patents in force as of June 8, 1995, due to a Section 156
       extension no differently than any other patents.  Thus,
       patents in force due to extension should be treated no
       differently and the first approach mentioned in the
       Commission's notice of this meeting is the correct one, to
       add the extension issued already by the PTO to the longer of
       the 17- or 20-year period.  Thank you.