Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (Hansard, 15 February 1993)

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many technical projects at his Department's chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defence since 1963; what has been the total worth of these projects; and what were the aims of these projects;
(2) how many personnel from the United States Department of Defence have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's chemical and biological warfare establishment since 1963; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreement these postings were arranged.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993: Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many technical projects at his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1963; what has been the total worth of these projects; and what were the aims of these projects (Question 8, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and what funding the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defense for research in the near future (Question 24, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I would refer you to my letter of 16 July 1992 in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many research projects at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1979 and their total worth (Question 24, Order Paper 15 July 1992) in which I said that there have been no research projects at CDDE Porton Down directly funded by the United States Department of Defense. I also said that CBDE had recently been tasked to carry out work under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Strategic Defence Initiative which is being funded by the US Department of Defense through the SDI Participation Office in London. The value of that work at CBDE in the current financial year is £1.59M. Since my letter to you of 16 July 1992, we have been awarded a contract from the United States Department of Defense to support the UK programme in aid of a NATO Project Group tasked with selecting a commercially available anti-emetic drug to protect servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting. The value of this work is £250K. 60W The aims of these projects are as follows:

(a) The work in support of the Strategic Defence Initiative is to improve the effectiveness of such defences against the threat of chemical or biological weapons.

(b) The anti-emetic work is to improve the protection of servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting.

Insofar as the future is concerned, it is not possible to estimate what future funding this Establishment will receive from the US Department of Defense as the annual defence budget in the United States is subject to extensive review and the outcome depends on the US Government and Congressional reviews of the budget.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) under which defence agreement information from the defence microbiology division of the chemical and biological defence establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed; when this information was first exchanged; and with which other countries information from the defence microbiology division has been exchanged;
(2) what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; when it was set up; how many staff are in the division; and in which publications and on what dates scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; when it was set up; how many staff are in the Division; and in which publications and on what date scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991 (Question 26 Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed; when this information was first exchanged and with which other countries information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged (Question 10, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down is to carry out work on defence against pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins that are assessed to present a threat to the United Kingdom Armed Forces. The work of this Division contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence which is aimed at ensuring that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

3. The Defence Microbiology Division was set up in 1979 when the Microbiological Research Establishment was transferred to the Public Health Laboratory Service and became the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. At that date, the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down took on the responsibility for biological 61 defence. Currently, the Division has 44 staff. A list of the research publications for scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division in 1991 is as follows:

The monitoring and detection of Bacillus anthracis in the environment. J. Appl. Bacteriol., Special Supplement, 1991 20:9S-18S.

Toxicity of Clostridium perfringens alpha-toxin is dependent on a domain homologous to an enzyme from the human arachidonic acid pathway. Infect. Immun. 1991 59:1872–1874.

Development of a detection test for Herpesvirus simiae (B virus) using the polymerase chain reaction, patent application GB 9102157.6 1991.

Epitope mapping of the alpha-toxin of Clostridium perfringens. Infect. Immun. 1991. 59:4338–4342.

Quantitative and qual-itative analysis of airborne spora. Grana. 1991. 30:407–408.

Microorganisms in Aerobiology. Grana. 1991. 30:17. Roles of Maillard Reactions in Diseases. 1991. HMSO Publications.

Evaluation of a small-scale method for the extraction of the K88 antigen from Escherichia coll. FEMS Microbiol. Letts. 1991. 78:81–84.

Production and characterisation of monoclonal antibodies directed against the lipopolysaccharide of Francisella tularensis. J.Clin. Microbiol. 29:1407–1412.

4. Insofar as the exchange of information with the United States of America is concerned, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in response to your Parliamentary Question asking under what defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, is passed to the United States Department of Defence (Question 9, Order Paper 16 July 1992). In that response I referred you to the reply of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Right Honourable Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256 which indicated that there are a number of agreements with NATO allies covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment. The purpose of these agreements is to exchange information and to promote co-operation and collaboration with our allies in the field of chemical and biological defence. The work of the Defence Microbiological Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence and such information is exchanged with the United States Department of Defence under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992.

5. The United States Governmental Establishments to which this information has been passed include the following:

a. The United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseas, Fort Detrick, Maryland.

b. The US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the US Edgewood Development and Engineering Center).

c. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

In addition, information has been exchanged from time to time with the appropriate US Navy and US Air Force establishments as well as with the Department of Defence in Washington DC. Most of the collaboration and information exchange has taken place with the US Army as they have the lead US responsibility for chemical and biological defence. The information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged since its establishment in [979. Information from the Defence Microbiology Division has also been exchanged with the other allied nations identified in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies his Department has conducted on the chemical agents bromacil, monuron and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid; when these tests and studies were carried out; whether they were carried out on62W humans; and whether the results of these tests and studies have been passed on to the United States Department of Defence.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
The substances bromacil, monuron and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic are commercially available herbicides and not chemical agents. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out on bromacil or monuron; 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid was, however, used operationally in Malaya in the 1950s. Details are available on files held by the Public Records Office.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department produced the nerve agent VX; where it was produced; for what purpose; and in what quantity;
(2) how the results of the collaborative programme between his Department and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence; in what year these collaborative programmes ended; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
These matters are for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when his Department produced the nerve agent VX; where it was produced; for what purpose; and in what quantity (Question 14, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how the results of the collaborative programmes between his Department and the United States Department of Defense on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defense; in what year these collaborative programmes ended; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes (Question 28, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of the materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.

3. VX was first synthesised on a laboratory scale in the early 1950s and subsequently produced in appropriate quantities for the research carried out into its toxicological characteristics, thermal stability and analytical research. Synthesis has been carried out at the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down and at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke, Cornwall.

4. The purpose of producing VX was stated in my letter to you of 10 August 1992 replying to your Parliamentary Question asking in which years the Department of Defence's scientists carried out studies and tests on quantities of VX nerve gas prepared by the United States of America, what was the purpose of these tests and studies and how many British Service personnel have been subjected to tests involving VX nerve gas (Question 26, Order Paper 14 July 1992). As I indicated in that letter, the purpose of the tests and studies of VX, although initially to assist the UK programme into producing nerve agents, was subsequently to evaluate the potential threat to the UK Armed Forces should an aggressor produce and use the nerve agent VX. The UK programme into offensive CW was abandoned in the late 1950s and since 63 then our work has been wholly concerned with the provision of effective protective measures. No studies involving British Service personnel have been carried out using VX nerve agent.

5. In respect of the quantity of the nerve agent VX, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in answer to your parliamentary question asking what quantity of VX nerve gas is currently stocked by his Department (Question 12, Order Paper 14 July 1992). In that I stated that small quantities of the nerve agent, VX, are held at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in order to enable us to carry out our work to ensure that the protective measures for the UK Armed Forces are effective. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the precise quantity of VX nerve gas; it is, however, a small quantity and is very much less than the aggregate quantity of chemical warfare agents that will be permitted to be held for protective purposes under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention that opened for signature in Paris on 13–15 January 1993.

6. The way in which the results of the collaborative programmes and information exchnage between the Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence is a matter for the United States Government. Insofar as the duration of these collaborative programmes and information exchange is concerned, I would refer you to the reply given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, MP of 16 July 1992, Official Report, Column 936, which stated that research information had been exchanged on a continuing basis on the potential hazard from chemical and biological agents including VX nerve gas under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Repot, Columns 255–256 concerning international agreements on chemical and biological defence.

7. The United States military establishments that took part in this information exchange and collaboration were primarily the US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center At Edgewood Arsenal, now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center, and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence also located at Edgewood, Maryland. Most collaboration has taken place with the US Army as they are the US lead agency for chemical and biological defence.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the lodger units at the chemical defence and biological defence establishment referred to on page 11 of the establishment's latest annual report.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livinstone, dated 15 February 1993.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which are the lodger units at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, referred to on page II of the Establishment's latest Annual Report (Question 15, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The lodger units at CBDE referred to on page 11 of the 1991/92 Annual Reports and Accounts were:

a. Hunting Engineering Ltd

b. Royal Ordnance Plc who have now left the site

In addition, receipts are received for services provided to two colocated units at Porton Down.

c. The Department of Health

d. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff from his Department's chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United64W States Department of Defence establishments and for what purpose; and at which United States Department of Defence establishments they were;
(2) under which defence agreements the chemical and biological defence establishment arranged the current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve detection capabilities; and from which United States defence establishment this scientist came;
(3) what funding the chemical and biological defence establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defence for research in the near future.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
These matters are for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff from his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United States Department of Defense Establishments and for what purpose; and at which United States Department of Defense Establishments they were (Question 16, Order Paper, 5 February 1993), how many personnel from the United States Department of Defense have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1963; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreements these posting were arranged (Question 31, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreements the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment arranged the current visit of the Unites States Navy scientist for collaborative project to improve detection capabilities; and from which United States Defense Establishment this came (Question 23, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. Our records do not allow us to readily determine the numbers of staff stationed in the United States or at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment over an extended period. During the past nine years, three members of staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed for an extended period at United States Department of Defense Establishments to carry out collaborative work in the field of chemical and biological defence. The United States Department of Defense Establishments were the US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center located at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the US Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Centre) and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

3. Over the same period four United States Department of Defense personnel have been stationed for extended periods at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. These attachments have been to carry out collaborative research in chemical and biological defence under the defence agreements identified in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256.

4. The current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve the detection capabilities was arranged under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence between the UK, US and Canada pending agreement of a bilateral arrangement with the US Navy. This scientist came from the United States Navy Medical Research and Development Command in Bethesda, Maryland.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which United States Department of Defence establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's 65W chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised; and which other United States Government departments and agencies have visited Porton Down during this period;
(2) how many staff from the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have visited United States Department of Defence establishments in each year since 1979; what was the purpose of these visits; which United States Department of Defence establishments they visited; which grade were the staff; and whether the visits included academic working for his Department.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993:

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which United States Department of Defense Establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised; and which other United States Government Departments and Agencies have visited Porton Down during this period (Question 20, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how many staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton have visited United States Department of Defense Establishments in each year since 1979; what was the purpose of these visits; which United States Department of Defense Establishments they visited; which grade were the staff; and whether the visits included academics working for his Department (Question 37, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The principal United States Department of Defense Establishments which have sent staff on visits to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down are:

a. The US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense at Edgewood, Maryland.

d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

e. The Department of Defense at the Pentagon.

3. In addition, representatives occasionally visit the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment from the US Navy, US Air Force and other Defense Establishments. Most visits are made by representatives fro the Department of Defense in Washington DC and from the US Army Establishments as the US Army have the lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defense.

4. The specific defence agreements under which these visits have been organised are those referred to in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, The Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255–256. Occasionally visits are made to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment by other representatives of the United States Government from time to time. These include the State Department and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

5. In respect of visits by staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to the United States Department of Defence Establishments, we do not maintain records in a way that enables us to identify how many staff have visited United States Department of Defence 66 Establishments in each year since 1979. In the last five years the following are the number of CBDE personnel who have visited the United States of America on official duty:

Number

1988–89 36

1989–90 35

1990–91 40

1991–92 56

1992–93 56

6. The purpose of these visits was to promote information exchange and collaboration between the United Kingdom and the United States and on occasion to attend international conferences held in the United States. The principal United States Department of Defence Establishments visited are the following:

a. The US Army Chemial Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick.

c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence at Edgewood, Maryland.

d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama.

e. The Department of Defence at the Pentagon, Washington DC.

In addition other US Navy, US Air Force, US Army and Department of Defence Establishments are visited. Most visits are to US Army Establishments as the US Army has lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defence. The grade of staff ranged from Senior Scientific Officer up to Grade 3. Visits very occasionally have included academics working for the Department but this is exceptional.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies his Department has carried out with the United States of America with regard to(a) the incapacitating agent BZ and (b) binary nerve gases; what was the aim of these tests and studies; and when these tests and studies were carried out.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what tests and studies his Department has carried out with the United States of America with regard to (a) the incapacitating agent BZ and (b) binary nerve gases; what was the aim of these tests and studies; and when these tests and studies were carried out (Question 22, Order Paper, 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. I would refer you to my letter to you of 10 August 1992 in answer to your Parliamentary Question asking how many tests had been carried out since 1967 involving the incapacitating agent BZ and British Service personnel, when these tests were carried out, whether all the personnel were volunteers and whether BZ is currently stocked by any of his Departments, Establishments (Question 32, Order Paper, 14 July 1992). In that reply I said that the role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton down is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. This work involved the evaluation of the potential hazard of possible agents such as the incapacitating agent BZ. No tests and studies have been carried out with the United States of America with regard to the incapacitating agent BZ.
67
3. In respect of binary nerve gases, I would refer you to the answer by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, MP of 16 July 1992, Official Report column 936 which indicated that research information had been changed on a continuing basis on the potential hazard from chemical and biological agents including VX nerve gas and possible binary gases with the aim of ensuring that the protective measures for the United Kingdom Armed Forces are as effective as possible. No tests and studies have been carried out on binary nerve gases with the United States of America.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the United Kingdom exchanged information about its research into CR gas with the United States of America.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when the United Kingdom exchanged information about its research into CR gas with the United States of America (Question 29, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. I would refer you to my letter to you of 10 August 1992 in answer to your Parliamentary Question asking what information about defence research into CR gas the United Kingdom has passed to the United States of America, under which defence agreement this information was exchanged and when the information was transferred (Question 36, Order Paper 14 July 1992). In my letter of 10 August 1992, I stated that research into CR commenced in 1962 at the then Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down. The information gained in the research programme during the subsequent years has formed part of the chemical and biological defence programme and has been the subject of information exchange and collaboration with the United States Department of Defence on a continuing basis.

§ Mr. Livingstone
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patents the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down has filed since 1962; and what are the numbers of each of these patents.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many patents the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has filed since 1962 and what are the numbers of each of these patents (Question 32, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The number of patents filed by this Establishment and its precursors, the Chemical Defence Establishment and the Microbiological Research Establishment, since 1962 is 63 and their numbers are as follows:

Number Number Number

1173142 1538056 2081744

1206581 1512536 2072873

1571799 1558183 2074995

1149042 1571799 2103564

1310011 1530714 2113672

68W

Number Number Number

1301101 1567606 2164327

1341550 4228598 2187725

1206340 1487612 2183207

1376888 1558153 2223411

1340343 1588442 2203543

1360277 1588441 2212149

1429476 2014452 2229527

1415664 2015531 2229526

1605289 2021594 2231404

1478463 2042099 2239740

1605296 2042100 2224114

1438651 2025006 2222370

1456231 2048052 2225251

1464368 2062929 2257017

1476761 2134228 US 5082540

1487611 2059677 2252323

Several other patent applications are still being processed.

	Number
1988–89	36
1989–90	35
1990–91	40
1991–92	56
1992–93	56