Ex Parte Chiang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 8, 2018

13159860 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/159,860 06/14/2011
27885 7590
FAY SHARPE LLP
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115
05/08/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kuang-Neng Chiang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PSEE 200083US01 2283
EXAMINER
CONLEY, FREDRICK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUANG-NENG CHIANG and HSIU-LUN LIANG
Appeal 2016-007 610
Application 13/159, 860
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDAE. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-
15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 33-39.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is identified as Picard Healthcare Technology
(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
2 Claim 22 is canceled. App. Br. 95 (Claims App'x). The remaining
pending claims are allowed or their rejections are withdrawn. Final Act. 1, 8
(listing claims 3, 4, 24, 25, and 28-32 as allowed); Ans. 2 (withdrawing
rejections of claims 10, 16, and 19).
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
We affirm in part.
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed subject matter relates to a medical air mattress designed
to prevent decubitus ulcers. Spec. 1. "The conventional medical air
mattress was developed to assist in the manual movement of and alternating
pressure areas on the patient using multiple odd and even cells alternatively
inflated to generate wave motion for changing the contact areas of the
patient's body." Id. Conventional medical air mattresses may also have
several detachable air cells that are removed to form a recess for holding a
bedpan. See id. "The design of detachable air cells ... is inconvenient to
caretakers since the patient still needs to leave the conventional air
mattress." Id. at 2. "The main objective of the present invention is to
provide independent air cells that can be deflated independently to receive
the bedpan." Id.
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 8, 9, 1 7, 18, 21 and 3 3 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with selected limitations
emphasized, illustrates the claimed subject matter.
1. A medical air mattress comprising:
a lower bedspread;
a mattress body mounted on the lower bedspread and
comprising multiple body air cells, multiple head air cells and
multiple independent air cells, the multiple body air cells, the
multiple head air cells and the multiple independent air cells are
positioned parallel to each other and arranged in a row to form
air cell rows, the multiple head air cells are arranged at a head
end of the mattress body and are designed to be inflatable and
deflatable, the multiple independent air cells are arranged at a
central part of the mattress body and are designed to be inflatable
and deflatable, the multiple body air cells are designed to be
2
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
inflatable and deflatable, the independent air cells are designed
to be deflatable, at least one of the independent air cells is
positioned between two of the body air cells or between one of
the body air cells and one of the head air cells;
a pumping assembly connecting to the mattress body and
comprising an independent deflating unit connecting to the
multiple independent air cells, the pumping assembly is
configured to selectively inflate and deflate the multiple body air
cells, the multiple head air cells and the multiple independent air
cells; and
an upper bedspread covering the mattress body and
connected securely to the lower bedspread, characterized in that
the multiple independent air cells are inflatable and deflatable
independently of the body air cells and the head air cells, the
multiple body air cells are inflatable and deflatable
independently of the head air cells, the mattress body is designed
to receive a bedpan when the multiple independent air cells are
deflated.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 33-35, 38, and 39 stand
rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over James (US
6,085,372, issued July 11, 2000) and Genaro (US 2009/0064418 Al,
published Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 2-6.
II. Claims 11-13 and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and Haas (US 6,119,292,
issued Sept. 19, 2000). Final Act. 6.
III. Claims 14, 15, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and Lachenbruch (US
2010/0325796 Al, published Dec. 30, 2010). Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
IV. Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and Hayes (US 6,725,485 B2,
issued Apr. 27, 2004). Final Act. 7.
DISCUSSION
Claims depending from allowed claim 4
Appellants point out that claims 7 and 13 depend from claim 4, which
was allowed by the Examiner, and assert that these claims should have been
indicated as allowable. App. Br. 64---65 (claim 7), 69 (claim 13). Unlike
claim 16, the rejection of which the Examiner withdrew because claim 16
depends from allowed claim 4, Ans. 2, there is no express indication of
withdrawal of the rejections of claims 7 and 13. Because claims 7 and 13
depend from allowed claim 4, however, we reverse proforma the rejections
of claims 7 and 13.
Rejection I
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue "James only teaches two distinctly inflatable air
cells along each half of the air mattress." App. Br. 42. Thus, Appellants
argue, "James does not disclose three different air cells and the positioning
of such different air cells in the air mattress relative to one another." Id. at
43; see Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of James and Genaro
in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds James teaches
multiple body, head, and independent air cells. Id. (citing James Figs. 3, 9).
The Examiner finds James teaches a controller that can independently
4
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
control the independent air cells, but is silent regarding an assembly
configured to selectively inflate and deflate the multiple body and head air
cells independently of each other, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3 (citing
James col. 5, 11. 17-26, col. 6, 11. 1--49, 63-68). As the Examiner finds:
Genaro discloses a control system that is configured to
independently control a group of cells or a plurality of
independent zones capable of being located along the entire
length of a body of an individual and parallel to the longitudinal
and lateral axis of the mattress (paragraphs [0011-
0012], [0036], [0039-0041 ]). It would have been obvious for one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
employ the system as explicitly taught by Genaro yielding
predictable results that provide high end therapy for the most
critically ill (paragraph [0041 ]).
Id. (emphasis omitted).
We understand Appellants' argument referring to "different" air cells
to reference the ability to independently inflate or deflate certain cells as
required by claim 1. As emphasized in claim 1 recited above, "the multiple
independent air cells are inflatable and deflatable independently of the body
air cells and the head air cells" and "the multiple body air cells are inflatable
and deflatable independently of the head air cells." We agree with the
Examiner that these limitations are met by the combination of James and
Genaro.
James teaches independent control of air cells in that there are two
different groups of cells on each side of James' mattress that can be inflated
or deflated independently by four distinct air conduits connected to even and
odd rows of cells on each side of the mattress. See James col. 5, 11. 17-21,
Fig. 5. As discussed above, the Examiner finds one of skill in the art would
have wanted to further independently control a group of cells or a plurality
5
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
of independent zones as taught by Genaro in order to provide high-end
therapy for the most critically ill. Final Act. 3 (citing Genaro paras. 11-12,
36, 39-41). In other words, Genaro teaches the desirability of independently
controlling inflation or deflation of air mattress cells, whether in specific
zones such as "head, trunk and foot," Genaro para. 36, or such that each cell
is an independent zone, id. at 41. See Genaro paras. 11-12. Modifying
James to include, in addition to control by even and odd air conduits,
independent control of cells from either of these examples in Genaro results
in an air mattress with independent air cells arranged at a central part of the
mattress body that are inflatable and deflatable independently of the air cells
arranged at a head end (i.e., head air cells) and the remaining air cells (i.e.,
body air cells). The body air cells would also be inflatable and deflatable
independently of the head air cells because each zone (which may be a
single cell) is inflatable or deflatable independently of the others. Genaro
para. 11 ("The control system may include a control module for each of the
cells or alternatively, a control module for each group of the cells, wherein
each of the cells or group of cells is independently inflatable and
deflatable."). Appellants' arguments directed to James alone do not address
the Examiner's rejection based on the combined teachings of the references
and, therefore, do not inform us of error in the rejection.
Regarding Genaro, Appellants contend it does not overcome the
deficiencies of James because "Genaro does not include any teachings
regarding a particular air mattress configuration that can be used with the
pressure control system for supporting a surface of an air mattress." App.
Br. 46; see Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants' contention is contradicted by the
evidence, however, as Genaro provides specific examples of (1) zones of
6
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
head, trunk, and foot, or (2) making each cell an independent zone. Genaro
paras. 36, 41. Appellants' arguments do not address these examples from
Genaro and, therefore, do not inform us of error in the rejection on this basis.
Appellants also argue James and Genaro do not teach the use of a
bedpan in an air mattress, or that when multiple independent air cells are
deflated, the air mattress can receive a bedpan. App. Br. 45--46. Claim 1
recites that "the mattress body is designed to receive a bedpan when the
multiple independent air cells are deflated." Because it is the deflation of
independent air cells that allows the mattress to receive the bedpan, this
capability is taught by the combination of James and Genaro. Appellants do
not argue claim 1 requires any other particular feature in order for the
mattress to be designed to receive a bedpan.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not informed of error in the
rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro,
and we sustain the rejection.
Independent claims 8 and 1 7
Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 8 and 17 is in
error for at least the reasons argued in support of claim 1, and Appellants
assert that neither James nor Genaro teach additional limitations recited in
these claims. See App. Br. 46--48 (claim 8), 54--56 (claim 17). For the same
reasons that we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and because Appellants'
conclusory statements regarding claims 8 and 17 do not constitute separate
arguments under our rules, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 17 as
unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as
7
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
to each ground of rejection contested by appellant. . . . A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal briefthan a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
Independent Claim 21
Appellants argue claim 21 has many of the same limitations of claim
1, and also includes additional limitations regarding the positioning of a
plurality of independent cells relative to the body air cells and regarding the
pumping assembly. App. Br. 61. Appellants point out that, unlike claim 1,
which requires "at least one" of the independent air cells to be positioned
either between two of the body air cells or between one of the body air cells
and one of the head air cells, claim 21 recites that "a plurality of the
independent air cells that are positioned adjacent to one another is positioned
between two of the body air cells." See id. Appellants argue these
limitations are not taught in James because "James discloses that different
types of air cells are positioned adjacent one another." Id. Appellants also
state that "[ t ]he teachings of Genaro do not overcome such deficiencies of
James." Id.
As discussed above with claim 1, the Examiner's rejection relies on
the combined teachings of James and Genaro. In responding to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner emphasizes that "Genaro comprises independent
solenoid valves and check valves connected to each individual air cell or
8
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
zone and a control system that is configured to independently control a
group of cells or a plurality of independent zones." Ans. 12 (citing Genaro
paras. 11-12, 36, 39--41). The limitations ofclaim21 disputed by
Appellants are met by James' air mattress modified such that each individual
air cell is inflatable and deflatable independently, as taught in Genaro. Such
a mattress would have (1) at least two adjacent air cells (i.e., independent air
cells) at a central part of the mattress body that are positioned between two
other air cells (i.e., body air cells) and can be inflated and deflated
independently of all other air cells, and (2) multiple air cells at a head end of
the mattress body (i.e., head air cells) that can be inflated and deflated
independently of all other air cells. The claim does not require that each
"head," "body," or "independent" air cell be constrained to inflate and
deflate with all other cells of the same type. Therefore, Appellants'
arguments as to the positioning and independent control of air cells do not
inform us of error in the rejection of claim 21.
Appellants also argue neither James nor Genaro teaches the pump
assembly limitations of claim 21, but the argument is premised on
Appellants' contention that the references fail to teach an air mattress that
has three sets of air cells that can be independently inflated/ deflated, as
argued in support of claim 1. See App. Br. 62. Thus, this argument also
does not inform us of error in the rejection of claim 21.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as
unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro.
9
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
Independent Claim 3 3
Appellants argue James does not teach claim 33 's limitations
requiring "at least two of the head cells are positioned adjacent to one
another," "at least two of the independent air cells are positioned adjacent to
one another," "at least two of the body air cells are positioned adjacent to
one another," and "at least one of the independent air cells is positioned
between two of the body air cells or between one of the body air cells and
one of the head air cells." See App. Br. 63. Appellants contend James does
not disclose three distinct air cells, does not disclose different types of air
cells being positioned adjacent one another, and that Genaro does not
overcome the deficiencies of James. Id.
For essentially the same reasons as claim 1, Appellants' arguments as
to claim 33 do not inform us of error in the rejection of that claim, despite
the difference in claim language. Modifying James to add, in addition to
control by even and odd air conduits, either (1) Genaro's three
independently inflatable and deflatable head, trunk, and foot zones, Genaro
para. 36, or (2) independent control of each cell as taught by Genaro, would
result in a medical air mattress that meets the disputed limitations of claim
33 recited above. Where there are three independent zones at the head (i.e.,
"head air cells"), mid-section (i.e., "independent air cells"), and foot (i.e.,
"body air cells") of the mattress, all cells of each type are adjacent one
another, and the independent air cells are between the body air cells and the
head air cells. Appellants do not argue that anything more than the ability to
inflate and deflate a cell independently of other cells is required to make a
cell "distinct" from others. Hence, Genaro's teaching that each cell of the
10
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
mattress may be independently controlled allows for inflating and deflating
adjacent cells together, but independently of other cells.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 33 as
unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro.
Independent claims 9 and 18, and dependent claims 2 and 23
Independent claim 9 recites, in part, that "each body air cell, each
head air cell and each independent air cell are respectively uniform in
diameter between a width of the mattress body" (the "uniform diameter"
limitation). Appellants argue James does not teach the uniform diameter
limitation because James teaches two independent air cells for each row of
air cells that form the width of the air mattress, and the connection between
them is not inflatable. App. Br. 49.
Appellants' argument is premised on an interpretation of the uniform
diameter limitation that requires each cell to extend along the full width of
the mattress body. Although such a configuration is shown in Appellants'
Specification, see Spec. Fig. 2, there is no particular language in claim 9 that
indicates the claim is intended to be so limited. Unlike claim 9, claims 35,
38, and 39, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 33, recite that a
longitudinal length of certain air cells "extend[ s] substantially a full width of
the mattress body." Thus, where Appellants intended to so limit the claims,
the claim explicitly recites that the longitudinal length of the cells extends
substantially a full width of the mattress body. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, a cell that is "uniform in diameter between a width
of the mattress body," as recited in claim 9, requires that the diameter of the
11
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
cell not change between the two sides of the mattress. 3 Appellants do not
point to any portion of the Specification that uses this phrasing in any way to
mean something else. Although James has two cells in each row, each cell
is uniform in diameter between the two sides of the mattress, and Appellants
do not argue otherwise. Thus, we are not informed of error in the
Examiner's finding that James teaches the uniform diameter limitation of
claim 9.
Appellants also contend "[ n ]either James nor Genaro disclose or teach
the pump assembly limitations of claim 9." App. Br. 50. The argument is
premised on Appellants' contention that the references fail to teach an air
mattress that has three sets of air cells that can be independently
inflated/ deflated, as argued in support of claim 1. See id. at 50---51. Thus,
this argument also does not inform us of error in the rejection of claim 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 as
unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro. The same arguments
presented in support of claim 9 are presented for independent claim 18 and
dependent claims 2 and 23, and each of these claims has the same uniform
diameter limitation. See App. Br. 56-58 (claim 18), 65 (claims 2, 23). For
the same reasons as claim 9, these arguments do not inform us of error in the
rejection of claims 2, 18, and 23, and we sustain the rejection of these claims
as unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and Genaro. 4
3 Notwithstanding our best interpretation, the phrase "between a width"
lacks clarity, as a width is a dimension and "between" is generally used as a
preposition to locate something in the space separating two objects or
reg10ns.
4 Appellants' also assert, without further explanation, that "neither James nor
Genaro disclose a pump assembly that has a manual alternating device
connected between the body pipelines and the independent pipelines as
12
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
Dependent claims 35, 38, and 39
As noted above in the analysis of claim 9, claims 35, 38, and 39 each
recite particular air cells "extending substantially a full width of the mattress
body." Appellants argue "none of the air cells of James extend continuously
the full width of the air mattress" because James' air mattress has cells on
two halves of the mattress that are joined at the center but not in fluid
communication with one another at the center. App. Br. 67----69.
Claims 35, 38, and 39 were rejected with claim 1, without further
addressing the disputed limitations recited above. Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner's Answer also does not address these limitations. We agree with
Appellants that James does not teach a single air cell extending substantially
a full width of the mattress body because James has two separate air cells
that are joined in the center of the mattress. The Examiner does not rely on
Genaro for these limitations, either. 5 Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 35, 38, and 39 as unpatentable under§ 103(a) over James and
Genaro.
required in independent claim 18." App. Br. 58. This statement does not
constitute a separate argument under our rules. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv);
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
5 We note that cells extending substantially a full width of the mattress body
are shown in Appellants' illustration of the prior art in Figure 12, as well as
in the Haas (Fig. 2) and Lachenbruch (Fig. 1) references. The rejection does
not appear to rely on any of these teachings for the missing limitations of
claims 35, 38, and 39. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board
elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1213.02.
13
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
Dependent claims 5, 6, 20, and 34
For dependent claims 5, 6, 20, and 34, Appellants argue the claims
based on the claims' dependency or at most recite limitations of the claims
and incorporate all arguments as to other claims for which we sustain the
rejections. App. Br. 64---66. 6 Without indicating any difference in claim
language necessitating a different result as to claims 5, 6, 20, and 34, we are
not informed of error in the rejection of these claims. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 6, 20, and 34 as unpatentable under§ 103(a) over
James and Genaro.
Rejection II
Appellants argue claims 11, 12, and 26 based on their dependency
from independent claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 69. Because we sustain the
rejections of the independent claims, we are not informed of error in the
rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 26 on this basis.
Appellants also contend that Haas does not disclose "a massage unit
mounted on the mattress body and having multiple micro vibrators," as
recited in claims 11, 12, and 26. App. Br. 70. Appellants contend that the
vibration caused by Haas' vibrator 30 is accomplished by controlling the
fluid flow into the bladders and cells, citing Haas column 5, lines 50-62 for
support. App. Br. 70.
6 We note that Appellants incorporate arguments made in support of claims
10 and 19 in arguing that the rejection of claims 5 and 6 is in error, App. Br.
66, but claims 5 and 6 do not recite that the diameter of the air cells tapers
and do not depend from a claim with similar limitations. Thus, claims 5 and
6 do not include limitations that formed the basis for the withdrawal of the
rejection of claims 10 and 19. See Ans. 2.
14
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
A preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's finding that
Haas teaches a massage unit having a vibrator. The portion of Haas cited by
Appellants discusses selectively inflating and deflating the bladders and cells
in a desired sequence, such as an undulating wave pattern, and then provides
that "[ v ]ibration means may also be included and associated with the fluids
filling the top cells to vibrate the top cells." Haas col. 5, 11. 50-62 (emphasis
added). The separate discussion of the undulating wave pattern and the
vibration indicates that these are two separate features of Haas' air mattress.
This understanding is further supported by Haas' description that the
inflatable bladders "are interconnected with ... a pump 18 [and] a vibrator
30 controlled by a control panel 32." Haas col. 8, 11. 54--56 (cited at Ans.
13). Haas further provides that "vibrator 30 may be activated to vibrate the
bladders 20 to gently massage the patient." Id. at 11. 66----67 (cited at Ans.
13). The most reasonable interpretation of these passages is that vibrator 30
is the source of vibrations and that the pump is used separately merely to
inflate the bladders. Appellants do not address the portions of column 8 of
Haas cited by the Examiner or explain why this understanding is not correct.
Appellants also argue Haas does not teach multiple micro vibrators.
App. Br. 70; Reply Br. 5. The argument does not inform us of error because
it does not address the Examiner's explanation that employing duplicate
parts is considered an obvious modification to yield the predictable result of
providing several locations that gently massage a patient. Ans. 13.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not informed of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and
Haas, and we sustain the rejection.
15
Appeal2016-007610
Application 13/159, 860
Rejections III-IV
Appellants argue Rejections III and IV are in error based on the
dependency of claims from claims 1, 21, and 33, or for the same reasons
argued in support of claim 1. App. Br. 70-72. For the same reasons that we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 21, and 33, we sustain the rejections under
§ 103(a) of claims 14, 15, and 27 as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and
Lachenbruch, and claims 36 and 37 as unpatentable over James, Genaro, and
Hayes.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of:
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 33, and 34 as unpatentable over
James and Genaro; claims 11, 12, and 26 as unpatentable over James,
Genaro, and Haas; claims 14, 15, and 27 as unpatentable over James,
Genaro, and Lachenbruch; and claims 36 and 37 as unpatentable over James,
Genaro, and Hayes.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 7, 13, 35, 38, and 39.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16