Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019003379 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/723,059 05/27/2015 Paul J. Asente P5115-US 9688
108982 7590 12/31/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL J. ASENTE and JAKUB FISER
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–14, 16–18 and 20–22. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe
Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to freeform drawing beautification. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling beautification of a freeform path
by at least one computing device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one computing device, an input
describing the freeform path drawn in response to a user input as
part of a drawing, the freeform path not formed solely as a
circular arc or a circle and including at least one curved element;
locating, by the at least one computing device, an existing
path included in the drawing having the freeform path, the
freeform path having at least one geometric property similar to
the existing path in the drawing;
evaluating, by the at least one computing device, a
similarity between the freeform path and the existing path in the
drawing, the evaluating based, in part, on a geometric rule that
corresponds to the at least one geometric property;
constructing, by the at least one computing device, at least
one suggestion based on the geometric rule, the constructing
including;
scaling either the freeform path or the existing path, the
scaling causing a distance between endpoints of the freeform
path to match a distance between endpoints of the existing path;
or
causing a curvature of a segment of the freeform path to
match a curvature of a segment of the existing path; and
outputting, by the at least one computing device, the
constructed at least one suggestion to modify the freeform path
or the existing path.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

3
REFERENCES2
The references relied upon by the Examiner as prior art are:
Name Reference Date
Edwards US 6,459,442 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
Ramani US 2006/0227140 A1 Oct. 12, 2006
Bhattacharyya US 2011/0038543 A1 Feb. 17, 2011
Miura US 2011/0164041 A1 July 7, 2011
Igarashi, T., “Freeform User Interfaces for Graphical Computing,” A
doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Information Engineering, The
University of Tokyo, Dec. 1999.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Edwards, Bhattacharyya, and Miura.3 Final Act. 5–
12.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Edwards, Bhattacharyya, Miura, and Igarashi. Final
Act. 12–17.
Claims 11–14, 16–18, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Edwards, Bhattacharyya, Miura, and Ramani.
Final Act. 17–28.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 9 in the Answer. Ans. 5
(“Examiner replies that applicant’s argument is persuasive, and the
rejection to the dependent claim 9 has been withdrawn.”).
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

4
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Miura teaches or
suggests:
scaling either the freeform path or the existing path, the scaling
causing a distance between endpoints of the freeform path to
match a distance between endpoints of the existing path; or
causing a curvature of a segment of the freeform path to match a
curvature of a segment of the existing path,
as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining Miura with
Edwards because the proposed combination would change the operating
principle of Miura?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in combining Bhattacharyya
with the other cited references because the proposed combination would
render Bhattacharyya unsuitable for its intended purpose?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Bhattacharyya
teaches or suggests “replacing the freeform path with the existing path in the
drawing in response to a determination that the absolute value is within a
defined threshold,” as recited in dependent claim 6?
Fifth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Miura teaches or
suggests “calculating angles between successive tangent lines of the
identified tangent lines,” as recited in claim 11?
Sixth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Miura teaches or
suggests “determining an angle of rotation that minimizes differences
between the freeform path and the existing path,” as recited in independent
claim 18?
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

5
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
constructing, by the at least one computing device, at least
one suggestion based on the geometric rule, the constructing
including;
scaling either the freeform path or the existing path, the
scaling causing a distance between endpoints of the freeform
path to match a distance between endpoints of the existing path;
or
causing a curvature of a segment of the freeform path to
match a curvature of a segment of the existing path.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Edwards teaches
“constructing, by at least one computing device, at least one suggestion
based on the geometric rule.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner further finds
Edwards does not teach either the “scaling” or the “causing” limitations.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds Miura teaches these limitations. Final
Act. 9 (citing Miura Figs. 1–4 and 12A–12B, ¶ 118).
Appellant argues that Miura teaches neither the “scaling” limitation
nor the “causing” limitation. With respect to the “scaling” limitation,
Appellant argues Miura “never discusses any scaling of its line figure or of
changing a distance between endpoints of its line figure.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant asserts that Miura “simply discuss[es] the curvature of sections of
its line figure can be adjusted to produce a more aesthetic curve, not that its
line figure is scaled or resized.” Appeal Br. 11.
We are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellant’s argument
because it is not commensurate with the broad scope of the claim. We
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

6
accord claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its
broadest reasonable interpretation.”). Here, the “scaling” limitation and the
“causing” limitation are presented as alternative options. That is, the claim
recites that a suggestion is constructed using either “scaling” or “causing.”
The claimed method, therefore, does not require that both “scaling” and
“causing” be performed. Rather, performance of either one of these options
brings the prior art within the scope of the claim. Therefore, while we agree
with Appellant that Miura does not teach or suggest the “scaling” limitation,
because the limitation need not be performed, the absence of the “scaling”
limitation shows error only if the “causing” limitation is also absent from
Miura. We agree with the Examiner that it is not.
Appellant argues that Miura fails to teach “causing a curvature of a
segment of the freeform path to match a curvature of a segment of the
existing path.” Appeal Br. 12. Here, the Examiner finds that Miura’s
shaping of a curved line into an aesthetic curve, as shown in figures 12A and
12B of Miura, teaches this limitation. Final Act. 9. In the Answer, the
Examiner further explains that it is the combined teachings of Edwards and
Miura that teach this limitation:
Edwards teaches that the freeform line is matched to the existing
line based on slope similarity (See Edwards: Figs. 27-28), and
Miura teaches that the curvature continuity (G 2-continuity) may
be obtained to compare the curvature section by section[,]
starting from the first section.
Ans. 4 (citing Edwards Figs. 27–28; Miura Figs. 12–13).
Appellant argues that Miura “mere[ly] discusses determining
geometric attributes of portions of a line figure and adjusting the geometric
attributes to attempt to shape the curvature of the line figure to correspond to
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

7
known anesthetic curvature attributes.” Appeal Br. 12. According to
Appellant:
Miura does not match its input line figure to an existing path, but
manipulates its input line figure to conform to a specified
geometric equation. The drawings shown in FIGs. 12(a) and
12(b) of Miura are two versions of the same line figure, not to
different line figures.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also argues that Edwards is deficient because it
relates only to “behaviors that can be applied to freeform input strokes to
modify and/or augment the input strokes” and “uses a ‘two-dimensional
drawing behavior,’ and not an existing path included as part of a drawing.”
Reply Br. 6. We do not agree.
Edwards relates to “[a] freeform display editing system [that] groups
freeform strokes into one or more segments on a display.” Edwards,
Abstract. Edwards teaches a freeform display editing system which
“receives an input stroke from the segment controller, and modifies a set of
painted strokes maintained by the segment.” Edwards col. 12, ll. 7–9. One
of the modifications taught by Edwards is a “two-dimensional drawing
behavior applied to a segment [that] automatically beautifies freeform
strokes in the segment that are considered by the behavior to define a
geometric relationship.” Edwards col. 12, ll. 32–34. Edwards further
describes that “[t]his behavior will generate multiple candidates and present
them in a different color on the display for selection by the user.” Edwards
col. 12, ll. 34–36. Edwards further teaches that the behavior “will predict a
subsequent drawing based upon the spatial relationship among in input
stroke and existing painted strokes in a segment.” Through these teachings,
Edwards demonstrates that it was known in the art to automatically provide
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

8
a suggestion for a freeform stroke based on a previously entered freeform
stroke.
Miura teaches a system which is used “[t]o easily form curves
preferable for design (beautiful curves or aesthetic curve’s).” Miura,
Abstract. Miura describes receiving a freeform graphic input which includes
a curved line. Miura ¶¶ 56–57. Miura teaches dividing the curved line into
segments (Miura ¶ 58), and then reshaping the curved line into an aesthetic
curve “by using a function defined in terms of the curvature to convert each
of the pieces of segment information generated by the dividing unit (Miura
¶¶ 76, 94). Thus, Miura demonstrates that it was known in the art to make
modifications to a curved input to match a predefined curve.
Appellant contends that Miura is deficient because the modification is
not made based on another curved line previously input by a user—the
recited “the existing path.” However, the Examiner does not rely on Miura
as teaching “the existing path.” The Examiner relies on Edwards as
demonstrating that it was known in the art to receive freeform inputs and
make suggestions based on those inputs. That is, Edwards teaches
generating recommendations based on freeform graphics inputs. As
explained by the Examiner, Edwards’ inputs are not curved inputs. Miura is
brought in as evidence that it was known in the art to analyze curved input
and to modify the curved input to match a predetermined curve. Taken
together, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have appreciated that Edwards’ recommendations based on freeform
graphics inputs could be extended to include curved lines as taught by
Miura, because Miura shows that curves can be adjusted based on known
predefined curve parameters. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

9
erred in finding that the disputed limitation is taught or suggested by the
combination of Edwards and Miura.
Second Issue
In combining Miura with Edwards, the Examiner reasons as follows:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to modify
Edwards to have the constructing including: scaling either the
freeform path or the existing path, the scaling causing a distance
between endpoints of the freeform path to match a distance
between endpoints of the existing path; or causing a curvature of
a segment of the freeform path to match a curvature of a segment
of the existing path as taught by Miura in order form easily the
curve preferable for design (See Miura: [0021], “According to
the graphic information processing device, the graphic
information processing method, and the graphic information
processing program, the curvature is directly used to shape a line
figure that includes a curve. Therefore, a curve preferable for
design can be easily formed”). Edwards teaches a system that
edits the freeform strokes, while Miura teaches a system to
beautify the freeform strokes with G2 continuity. Thus, it is
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Edwards by
Miura to beautify the freeform strokes. The motivation to
modify Edwards by Miura is “Use of known technique to
improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same
way”.
Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant argues the combination of Edwards and Miura is improper
because “an attempt to modify Miura to teach the subject matter of claim 1
would impermissibly change a fundamental operating principle of Miura.”
Appeal Br. 13. More specifically, Appellant argues that Miura emphasizes
that adjustments made to its curves should be done in such a way that the
end points of the line are fixed. Appeal Br. 14. According to Appellant,
modifying Miura to “incorporate the notion of scaling to cause ‘a distance
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

10
between endpoints of the freeform path to match a distance between
endpoints of the existing path’ would violate this operating princip[le] of
Miura of maintaining fixed endpoints.” Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded of reversible error by this argument for two
reasons. First, as explained above, the “scaling” limitation need not be
shown in the prior art because it is one of two options, and the performance
of either one of these options brings the prior art within the scope of the
claim. Therefore, Miura need not be modified to incorporate the notion of
scaling as argued by Appellant. Moreover, the Examiner’s combination of
Miura with Edwards does not propose making any modification to the
functionality in Miura. Rather, the Examiner proposes modifying Edwards
by incorporating Miura’s ability to beautify freeform curves. As such,
Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Edwards and Miura is insufficient, and we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in combining them.
Third Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation “receiving . . . an input describing the
freeform path drawn in response to a user input as part of a drawing, the
freeform path not formed solely as a circular arc or a circle and including at
least one curved element.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). In rejecting
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Edwards generally teaches this limitation
except that it does not teach that freeform inputs “include[e] at least one
curved element.” The Examiner introduces Bhattacharyya to address this
deficiency, finding that “Bhattacharyya teaches that the freeform path
includes one or more curved elements.” Final Act. 7–8 (citing
Bhattacharyya ¶ 48, Figs. 3A–3D). The Examiner concludes that “it would
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

11
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to modify Edwards
to have the freeform path including one or more curved elements as taught
by Bhattacharyya . . . to account for random variations in a user’s
handwriting and drawings.” Final Act. 8 (citing Bhattacharyya ¶ 59). The
Examiner finds that this modification constitutes “[u]se of a known
technique to improve similar devices . . . in the same way.” Id.
Appellant argues the use of Bhattacharyya is improper because “an
attempt to modify Bhattacharyya to combine the references with the other
cited references to teach the subject matter of claim 1 would impermissibly
change a fundamental operating principle of Bhattacharyya and render
Bhattacharyya unfit for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 15. More
specifically, Appellant contends that Bhattacharyya is concerned with
identifying similarities in input handwritten notes, and that it “is not
concerned with visually modifying its handwritten notes” and that “[a]ny
visual modification of its handwritten notes would frustrate this purpose of
finding visual similarities between handwritten notes.” Appeal Br. 16.
According to Appellant, “an attempt to combine the concepts of visual
modifications discussed in Edwards and Miura with Bhattacharyya’s notion
of determining existing similarity between handwritten notes . . . [w]ould
impermissibly change a fundamental operating principle of Bhattacharyya
and would render Bhattacharyya unfit for its intended purpose.” Appeal
Br. 16–17.
We are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellants’ argument.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner does not propose any
modification to Bhattacharyya. Rather, the Examiner relies on the teachings
of Bhattacharyya to modify Edwards. Final Act. 8 (“modify Edwards to
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

12
have the freeform path including one or more curved elements as taught by
Bhattacharyya”). That is, the Examiner’s proposed combination simply
provides that Edwards’ recommendations could be extended from straight-
line inputted strokes to curved inputted strokes, and doing so would have
been obvious because Bhattacharyya demonstrates that it was known in the
art to receive and analyze to curved freeform input. Appellant’s argument
does not address this reasoning, but instead argues against a combination
and modification that was not proposed by the Examiner. As such, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Bhattacharyya with the
remaining references.
Fourth Issue
The Examiner rejects claim 6 as obvious over Edwards,
Bhattacharyya, Miura, and Igarashi. Final Act. 15. Relevant here, claim 6
recites the limitation “replacing the freeform path with the existing path in
the drawing in response to a determination that the absolute value is within a
defined threshold.” Appeal Br. 35 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds
that Bhattacharyya teaches this limitation. Final Act. 15–16 (citing
Bhattacharyya ¶¶ 38, 43).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because “while Bhattacharyya
discusses the notion of using a distance of similarity between handwritten
notes to identify an output similar handwritten notes, Bhattacharyya makes
no mention of replacing any of its handwritten notes, much less ‘replacing
the freeform path with the existing path in the drawing in response to a
determination that the absolute value is within a defined threshold’ as recited
in claim 6.” Appeal Br. 20. We agree.
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

13
The cited portions of Bhattacharyya do not relate to replacement of an
input path with an existing path. Rather, the cited portions relate to
segmenting previously input handwritten notes in order to allow searching of
individual segments. Bhattacharyya ¶¶ 38, 43. For example, the algorithm
described in Bhattacharyya’s paragraph 38 is employed in order “[t]o
segment the series of symbols.” Bhattacharyya ¶ 38. There is no indication
that any symbol is being modified or replaced. Similarly, the discussion in
paragraph 43 of a “similarity ranking” does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. There, a similarity score is used to identify those handwritten
notes which will be presented in an output array based on an input user
query. Bhattacharyya ¶ 43 (“scores within a certain ranking are added to the
output array”). We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the Examiner has
failed to show that Bhattacharyya or the other remaining references teach or
suggest the disputed limitation of claim 6, and we do not sustain the
rejection. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim
7 which depends from claim 6.
Fifth Issue
Independent claim 11 recites, inter alia, the following disputed
limitations:
identifying tangent lines of the curved element at multiple
locations along a segment of the freeform path;
calculating angles between successive tangent lines of the
identified tangent lines; and
determining whether the calculated angles between the
successive tangent lines of the freeform path is within an
expected range.
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

14
Appeal Br. 37 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Miura teaches
these limitations. Final Act. 18–19 (citing Miura ¶¶ 51, 87, 111, and Figs.
5–6); Ans. 6 (additionally citing Miura ¶ 116).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings with respect to these
limitations. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Miura
is misplaced because although “Miura mentions that the curvature of a curve
segment can be changed by rotating the directional angle around a joint in
the curve segment,” it “never discusses calculating angles between
directional angles,” and “simply explains that the directional angle of a
curve can be calculated as a function of the length of a curve section and a
constant . . . indicating the degree of bending of the curve within the
segment.” Appeal Br. 22 (internal quotations omitted). Appellant further
argues the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 5 of Miura is also insufficient to
establish obviousness because it only shows a single tangent line, and cannot
therefore teach “angles between the successive tangent lines,” as recited in
claim 11. Appeal Br. 23.
We are persuaded the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cites
paragraph 51 of Miura, which states that “tangents between segments are
continuous.” Viewed in context, this paragraph merely describes
characteristics of a preferred free curve comprised of aesthetic curve
segments. See Miura ¶ 50. The Examiner further cites Figure 5 of Miura
and paragraphs 111 and 116. Ans. 6. Figure 5 of Miura depicts a line figure
that includes two aesthetic curve segments connected by a joint Pc. Miura
explains that to make the curvature between the two separate segments
continuous, the direction of the tangent line drawn through the joint can be
changed by shifting the positions of control points. Miura ¶ 111. Miura
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

15
further discloses that perfecting the curvature between two aesthetic
segments can be achieved by rotating curve segments until “the curvature
differences between all segments have converged to values equal to or
smaller than a predetermined threshold.” Miura ¶ 116. However, as pointed
out by Appellant, while Miura describes measuring curvature differences
between segments, we do not discern any teaching in Miura that angles
between tangent lines are calculated and compared. The Examiner does not
provide any explanation for why the determination of curvature differences
described by Miura teaches or otherwise renders obvious calculating angles
between successive tangent lines. Without such an explanation, we are
constrained by this record to reverse the rejection of independent claim 11,
as well as of claims 12–14, 16, 17, and 21 which depend therefrom.
Sixth Issue
Claim 18 is independent and recites the limitation of “determining an
angle of rotation that minimizes differences between the freeform path and
the existing path.” In rejecting claim 18, the Examiner finds that Miura’s
determination of a directional angle of the curve teaches this limitation.
Final Act. 26 (citing Miura ¶ 87 and Figs. 5–6).
Appellant argues the directional angle of Miura “is not analogous to
the angle of rotation recited in claim 18.” Appeal Br. 31. More specifically,
Appellant contends that Miura’s directional angle is a function of the length
of a curve section and constant, is not an angle of rotation, and “is instead
indicative of the length and curvature of the curve.” Appeal Br. 31.
Appellant further adds that “Miura simply discusses that manipulating the
directional angle can change the curvature of a curve, but makes no mention
Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

16
of any type of minimizing differences between different curves.” Reply
Br. 14.
We are persuaded of error. The Examiner cites Miura’s calculation of
a directional angle of a curve as teaching “determining an angle of rotation
that minimizes differences between the freeform path and the existing path.”
Final Act. 26; Ans. 8–9. We are persuaded, however, by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained why the
directional angle described by Miura is the same as an “angle of rotation” as
recited in the claim. The directional angle calculated by Miura allows for
“the tangent at the joint between aesthetic curve segments connected with
each other [to] become[] continuous” (Miura ¶ 93). We do not discern any
teaching in Miura, nor has the Examiner pointed to any such teaching, that
describes measuring how much to turn a curve about an axis (i.e., the angle
of rotation of a curve) to minimize differences between two curves. As
such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18, and we do
sustain its rejection. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 20 and 22 which depend therefrom.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2–5, 8, and 10, which fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm in part the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.

Appeal 2019-003379
Application 14/723,059

17

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 8, 10 103 Edwards,
Bhattacharyya,
Miura
1, 2, 5, 8, 10
3, 4, 6, 7 Edwards,
Bhattacharyya,
Miura, Igarashi
3, 4 6, 7
11–14, 16–
18, 20–22
Edwards,
Bhattacharyya,
Miura, Ramani
11–14, 16–
18, 20–22
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 8, 10 6, 7, 11–14,
16–18, 20–
22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART