Ex Parte Hjerpe et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201611877173 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111877, 173 10/23/2007 12208 7590 Kinney&Lange,P.A. 312 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 05/12/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Carl-Johan Hjerpe 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. PA0017118U-E273.12-595KL 7441 EXAMINER WHATLEY, KATELYNB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2016 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): amkoenck@kinney.com USPatDocket@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CARL-JOHAN HJERPE and PETER ASPLUND Appeal2014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 31--40, 45-55, and 70-72. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Claim 73 has been withdrawn from appeal (Br. 15). Citations herein to the Brief are to the Substitute Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2013. Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 The Invention The Appellants claim a method of collecting waste liquid during an engine washing operation. Claims 31, 36, and 70 are illustrative: 31. A method of washing an engine and collecting waste liquid as it exits the engine during the engine washing operation, the method comprising: injecting a washing liquid into an engine inlet; providing a collector relative to an engine outlet; and operating said engine in order to create an air stream through the engine, thereby entraining the washing liquid into the air stream as said washing liquid passes through said engine, wherein the engine will be cleaned by the entrained washing liquid and waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the collector so that the waste liquid will enter the collector from the environment outside the engine in order to be captured by the collector. 36. A method of collecting wash liquid that is injected into an inlet of an engine as it exits the engine during an engine \'I/ashing operation, the method comprising: delivering a washing liquid into an engine inlet; operating said engine in order to create an air stream through the engine, thereby entraining the washing liquid into the air stream as said washing liquid passes through said engine, wherein the engine will be cleaned by the entrained washing liquid and used washing liquid will exit an outlet of the engme; providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine for receiving the used washing liquid that has exited the engine outlet; and positioning a liquid separator relative to an engine outlet for receiving washing liquid as it exits the engine, and for separating the washing liquid from an air stream. 2 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 70. A method of collecting wash liquid during an engine washing operation, wherein the washing liquid is injected into an engine inlet, and the engine is operated in order to create an air stream through the engine, thereby entraining the washing liquid into the air stream as said washing liquid passes through said engine, wherein used washing liquid entrained in the airstream exits an outlet of the engine, the method compnsmg: providing a collecting device positioned below at least a portion of the engine to collect liquid exiting the engine resulting from the washing operation, during a waste liquid collection operation, wherein the collecting device is free of any physical connection to any portion of the engine. Latimer Testman Thomas Tada yon The References us 5,560, 782 us 5,899,217 US 6,565,758 Bl US 2003/0209256 Al The Rejections Oct. 1, 1996 May 4, 1999 May 20, 2003 Nov. 13, 2003 The claims stand rejected as follows: Claims 36-40 and 48-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, claims 31--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellants regard as the invention, claims 31, 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Testman, claims 32, 35, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman, claims 31, 32, 35, 36-38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas, claims 33, 37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon, claims 33 and 34 3 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon, claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer, and claims 45--47 and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer. OPINION We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs and the rejection of claims 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and affirm the rejection of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejections of claims 31--40, 45-55, and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Appellants argue only the independent claims (Br. 7-20). Although additional references are applied to some dependent claims, no separate arguments are set forth (Br. 10, 11, 15, 18-21 ). We therefore limit our discussion of the affirmed rejections to the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, first paragraph For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement, the applicant's specification must "convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541F.3d1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner argues that the Appellants' original disclosure lacks written descriptive support for the limitation "providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" in claim 36 (Ans. 2). The 4 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 Examiner notes that support is found in Figure 3 for providing a collector free from any physical connection to any portion of the engine (id.). However, according to the Examiner, Figure 3 does not support "a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine," as the "[t]he original disclosure does not clearly present how a collector can be unsecured directly or indirectly" (Ans. 19). The Appellants' Specification states that there is "no physical contact between the collector device and engine" (Spec. 4). Figure 3 of the Appellants' Specification shows that the collector (3) is neither directly connected to nor indirectly connected to the engine ( 1 ). The present application, therefore, shows, with reasonable clarity to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of the present application, possession of "a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine." The Examiner argues that the claim language "providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" is in the alternative form, and that, therefore, the claim encompasses a collector that is either unsecured directly or unsecured indirectly (Ans. 20). It is the Examiner's position that this alternative form of the claim limitation is broader than what is supported by the instant Specification, which supports no physical contact between the engine and the collector, and is not commensurate in scope with the Appellants' argument that the collector is required to be both unsecured directly and unsecured indirectly (id.). 5 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 The ordinary meaning of "secure" is "to make tight or firm: F ASTEN"2 and the ordinary meaning of the term "direct" is "[ w ]ith nothing intervening: IMMEDIATE ". 3 The Appellants' Specification shows that the collector is neither directly attached to the engine nor indirectly attached via intervening elements (Fig. 3). Additionally, the Appellants' Specification states that there is "no physical contact between the collector device and engine" (Spec. 4). Thus, the Appellants' Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim term "collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" requires the collector to be unsecured (i.e. not attached) to the engine. Therefore, the claim limitation excludes any attachment, either directly or indirectly, between the engine and the collector. Hence, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 3 6 and dependent claims 37--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description requirement. Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph Claims 31-35 and 45--47 The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellants' Specification, sets out and 2 WEBSTER'S II NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 1055 (Houghton Mifflin Co. 1984). 3 Supra, note 2 at 381. 6 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner argues that the limitation "waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the collector" is indefinite because "the exact boundary location of the claimed environment cannot be determined" (Ans. 3). According to the Examiner, because the environment outside of the engine contains the collector, it is unclear what the spatial relationship is between the environment and the collector (id.). "[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The ordinary meaning of "environment" is "the circumstances or conditions surrounding one: surroundings."4 The Appellants' Specification shows that waste liquid exiting the engine (205, 204, 203, 202) enters a space between the engine (1) and the collector (302) before being captured by the collector (302) (Fig. 3). Thus, the Appellants' Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim term "an environment outside of the engine and not part of the collector" includes a space between the exterior surface of the engine and the exterior surface of the collector. Hence, the Appellants' claim term "waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the 4 Supra, note 2 at 436. 7 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 collector," when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellants' Specification, would have set out and circumscribed a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 31 and dependent claims 32- 35 and 45--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 36--40 and 48-55 The Examiner argues that the limitation "providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" is indefinite because the Specification "does not provide any information as to what is required for the collector to be 'unsecured directly' or 'unsecured indirectly"' (Ans. 3). Further, the Examiner argues that the difference between being unsecured directly and unsecured indirectly is unclear (id.), and because the claim limitation is written in the alternative, the claim merely requires the collector to be unsecured directly or unsecured indirectly (Ans. 23). The Examiner contends that this is contrary to the Appellants' arguments that the claim requires the collector to be unsecured directly and unsecured indirectly, which the Examiner argues is not commensurate in scope with the claim language (id.). The Appellants' Specification indicates that the Appellants' claim term "collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine" requires the collector to be unsecured (i.e. not attached) to the engine, as similarly described above. Therefore, the claim limitation excludes any attachment, either directly or indirectly, between the engine and the collector, as similarly described above. 8 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 Hence, the Appellants' claim term "providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine," when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellants' Specification, would have set out and circumscribed a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 36 and dependent claims 37--40 and 48-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) Claim 31 "Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Testman discloses a collector (14) for collecting waste liquid expelled from an aircraft engine during the internal washing of the engine (col. 5, 11. 39--42 and 60). The collector is removably suspended beneath the engine housing (col. 4, 11. 35-38) such that the outer surface of the collector (14) is spaced from the outer surface of the engine housing (H as shown by the dashed line) (Fig. 2), in order to collect internal and external runoff from the engine housing (col. 5, 11. 60-65). The collector (14) includes a rigid extension (30) for collecting waste liquid that drips from the engine intake (I) (Fig. 2 and col. 6, 11. 39--49). The Appellants argue that the collector, as recited, must collect liquid entrained in the airstream, the portions cited by the Examiner to teach the collector (namely collector 14) do not collect waste liquid entrained in the 9 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 airstream, and the liquid entrained in the airstream goes directly from the engine into the collector and not into an environment outside the engine (Br. 13). Further, the Appellants contend that the collector (14) of Testman only collects runoff or overflow from the engine or exhaust opening (Br. 14). The Examiner argues that claim 31 does not require the collector, as recited, to collect waste liquid entrained in the air stream and that the claim merely requires waste liquid to be captured by the collector (Ans. 25). The Appellants' claim 31 requires that "the engine will be cleaned by the entrained washing liquid and waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine and not part of the collector so that the waste liquid will enter the collector from the environment outside the engine in order to be captured by the collector." The Appellants' Specification indicates that liquid exiting the engine is waste liquid, which includes liquid that is not entrained in the airstream (Spec. 8). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants' claim language "waste liquid," consistent with the Specification, is any liquid exiting the engine. Consequently, claim 31 does not require the waste liquid collected by the collector to include the liquid entrained in the airstream. The Appellants further argue that the waste liquid of Testman that is entrained in the airstream goes directly from the engine into the collector (duct 16) and not into an environment outside of the engine, as the duct ( 16) is sealed to the exhaust outlet (Br. 13-14). 10 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely on the duct (16) of Testman to teach the recited collector, but rather on the collector (14) of Testman (Ans. 4). Testman specifically discloses that the collector (14) is suspended from the engine housing, wherein the outer surface of the collector (14) is spaced from outer surface of the engine housing, such that liquid dripping from the engine intake is collected by the extension portion (30) of the collector (14), as stated above. Thus, Testman discloses that waste liquid will exit the outlet of the engine into an environment outside of the engine, and not part of the collector, so that the waste liquid will enter the collector from the environment outside the engine in order to be captured by the collector. We therefore are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 36, 48-50, and 55 Process claim 36 requires the limitation "providing a collector unsecured directly or indirectly to the engine for receiving the used washing liquid." Testman discloses that the collector (14) is secured to the engine by a series of straps (col. 7, 11. 1-20 and Fig. 2). The Examiner argues that extension portion (34) of Testman is not attached directly to the engine (Ans. 26). Testman discloses that all portions of the collector are either directly secured to the engine or indirectly secured to the engine (Fig. 2). The collector (14) is directly secured to the engine by straps (40, 42, 44, 46, 50, and 52) and the extension portions (30 and 34) are indirectly secured to the 11 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 engine by the straps through the intervening collector (14) (Fig. 2). The claim requires the collector to be unsecured to the engine, either directly or indirectly. For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of independent claim 36 and dependent claims 48-50 and 55. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 32, 35, and 54 over Testman The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 32 and 35, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman. The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of claim 54, which depends from claim 50 (Ans. 7 and 26-27). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 36, we reverse the rejection of claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman. Claims 33, 37, and 40 over Testman in view of Tadayon The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claim 33, which depends from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon. The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of claims 3 7 and 40, which depend from claim 36 (Ans. 7 and 26-27). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 37 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Tadayon. 12 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 Claims 45-47 and 51-53 over Testman in view ofLatimer The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 45- 4 7, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 45--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer. The Examiner has not separately argued the obviousness of claims 51-53, which depend from claim 36 (Ans. 8 and 26-27). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we reverse the rejection of claims 51- 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer. Claims 31, 32, 35, 36--38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70--72 over Testman in view of Thomas The Appellants argue that independent claims 31 and 3 6 are unpatentable for the same reasons as those given for independent claim 70 (Br 18). We therefore group our discussion of independent claims 31, 36, and 70. Thomas discloses a movable support frame (20) for collecting used wash fluid from an aircraft engine (col. 1, 11. 14--18 and col. 5, 11. 4--10). The movable support frame (20) is merely towed into position beneath the engine to collect waste liquid and is therefore not secured to or physically contacting the engine (col. 5, 11. 29--41 ). Thomas discloses that the movable support frame (20) is set up more easily and in a less time consuming manner than conventional systems (col. 2, 11. 63-67), of which Thomas lists the invention of Testman as an example (col. 2, 11. 34--40). The Appellants argue that Testman requires the collector to be connected and sealed to the engine and, when the collector is removed, the 13 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 collector is collapsible for easy storage and transport, and that, therefore, the suggested combination of Testman and Thomas would impermissibly change the principle of operation of the collector of Testman or make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (Br. 17). The Appellants appear to argue that both the principle of operation of the collector of Testman and its intended purpose are to collect waste water through direct attachment to the engine (id.). The Appellants state that "[ o ]ne could not simply remove the connections of Testman Jr. and expect that prior art device to work to collect waste water" (Br. 18). Both Testman and Thomas disclose devices for collecting waste liquid from an aircraft engine by positioning a collector below the engine. Both the principle of operation and the intended purpose of the collectors of Thomas and Testman are to collect waste water from below an aircraft engine. Therefore, modifying Testman's method by collecting waste water with the collector configuration of Thomas would not change the principle of operation or make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. An artisan of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination because the principle of operation and the intended purpose of the collectors of Testman and Thomas are the same, and Thomas discloses that the movable support frame (20) is an improvement upon conventional collectors, including that taught by Testman, as described above. The Examiner finds that an artisan of ordinary skill would have modified the collector of Testman to include the collector configuration taught by Thomas, in which the collector does not physically contact the 14 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 engine, in order to provide for quick set up and reduce the possibility of leaking used washing fluid (Ans. 9). The Examiner contends that obviousness is established because Thomas provides a motivation to modify the method of Testman and that an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination (Ans. 9 and 26). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had both an apparent reason or suggestion to modify the prior art and predictability or a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, comparing the collector of Testman with that of Thomas, that collecting waste water from an aircraft engine by towing the collector into position under the engine without connecting the support frame to the engine as done by Thomas (col. 5, 11. 29-36) is much simpler and less time consuming than securing the collector to the engine using the straps of Testman ( 40, 42, 44, 46, 50, 52) (Fig. 2). Thomas' disclosure that the movable support frame (20) is set up more easily and in a less time consuming manner than conventional systems, of which the collector of Testman is cited (Thomas, col. 2, 11. 34-- 40), would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to use Thomas' collector in the engine washing procedure of Testman. Accordingly, to set up the collector more easily and in a less time consuming manner than conventional systems, as argued by the Examiner (Ans. 27), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in 15 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to replace the collector of Testman with that of Thomas in order to collect the waste water from an aircraft engine during an engine washing procedure. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of independent claim 31 and, therefore, dependent claims 32 and 35, independent claim 36 and, therefore, dependent claims 37-38, 40, 48-50, 54, and 55, and independent claim 70 and, therefore, dependent claims 71 and 72. 5 Claims 33 and 34 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 33 and 34, which depend from claim 31 (Br. 18). Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tada yon. Claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer The Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53, which depend from claim 31or36 (Br. 18). Therefore, 5 The Appellants' other arguments, including that the collector of Thomas cannot be used to collect waste liquid entrained in an airstream (Br. 16), are not well taken because they argue limitations not required by the claims. See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348(CCPA1982). The limitation "waste liquid" does not require all waste liquid, including that entrained in the air stream. 16 Appeal014-003841 Application 11/877, 1 73 for the same reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claims 39, 45--47, and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 36-40 and 48-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, claims 31--40 and 45-55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claims 36, 48-50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Testman, claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman, claims 37 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view ofTadayon, and claims 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer are reversed. The rejections of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Testman, claims 32 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman, claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Tadayon, claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon, claims 45- 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Latimer, claims 31, 32, 35, 36-38, 40, 48-50, 54, 55, and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas, claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Tadayon, and claims 39, 45--47 and 51-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Testman in view of Thomas and Latimer are affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation