Ex Parte Hopkins et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 14, 201813672300 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/672,300 11/08/2012 86245 7590 08/16/2018 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/NORTEK P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lawrence Hopkins 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. 5985.039US2 9537 EXAMINER DECKER, PHILLIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3743 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2018 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): USPTO@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAWRENCE HOPKINS, EMILY JONES, ALBERT PASSADORE, and DAVID BENSON Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Technology Center 3700 Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JAMES P. CALVE, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. ST AI CO VICI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE- Lawrence Hopkins et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision in the Final Office Action (dated Nov. 5, 2015, hereinafter "Final Act.") rejecting claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 Huntair Inc. is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 18, 2016, hereafter "Br."). Br. 3. Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to an air handling system that requires a back draft damper. Spec. para. 2. Claims 1, 19, 31, and 32 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. An air handling system to condition air flowing through a room, compnsmg: a fan array having two or more fan units, each of the fan units including a corresponding motor and fan; and a back draft damper assembly comprising: a plurality of back draft dampers arranged to align with corresponding fan units in the fan array, each of the dampers having a central opening that receives airflow, each of the dampers including a plurality of vanes rotatably mounted within the damper, the vanes having sides, the airflow being directed into separate channels between adjacent vanes, the channels having an associated local slipstream of the airflow; and the vanes configured to independently rotate relative to one another based on the local slipstreams in the associated channels along both sides of each of the vanes, the vanes rotating to an open position in response to positive airflow in the local slipstream, the vanes rotating to a closed position in response to reverse airflow in the local slipstream. REJECTIONS I. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, 27, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali et al. (US 2010/0029195 Al, published Feb. 4, 2010, hereinafter "Jalali") and Baker et al. (US 7,416,481 B2, issued Aug. 26, 2008, hereinafter "Baker"). 2 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 II. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Aakalu et al. (US 6,042,348, issued Mar. 28, 2000, hereinafter "Aakalu"). III. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 18, and 22 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 10 3 (a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Soderlund (US 2004/0129410 Al, published July 8, 2004), and Baker. IV. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Sievert (US 1,935,216, issued Nov. 14, 1933), and Baker. V. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 13, 17, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Davis et al. (US 6,953,320 B 1, issued Oct. 11, 2005, hereinafter "Davis"). VI. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Ilg (US 1,189,572, issued July 4, 1916). VII. The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Reichow et al. (US 3,606,245, issued Sept. 20, 1971, hereinafter "Reichow"). ANALYSIS Rejection I Claims 1, 19, 31, and 32 Appellants have not presented arguments for the patentability of claims 19, 31, and 3 2 apart from claim 1. Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as the representative claim to 3 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 19, 31, and 32 standing or falling with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Jalali discloses most of the limitations of independent claims 1, 19, 31, and 3 2, but fails to disclose an airflow directed into separate channels between adjacent vanes that are configured to rotate independently relative to one another based on a local slipstream such that they rotate to an open position when experiencing positive airflow and to a closed position when experiencing reverse airflow. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Jalali, paras. 24, 28, Figs. 1, 5). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that Baker discloses a backflow damper having an airflow directed into separate channels between adjacent vanes that are configured to rotate independently relative to one another based on a local slipstream such that they rotate to an open position when experiencing positive airflow and to a closed position when experiencing reverse airflow. Id. at 5 ( citing Baker, col. 5, 1. 57---col. 6, 1. 26, Fig. 2). Thus, the Examiner determines that [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the prior art reference J alali with [the] vertically, independently rotat[ able] vanes of reference Baker to allow the vanes to open with a slight airflow from a fan unit and to only allow those vanes that come in contact with an airflow to react [to] the airflow in order to improve airflow. Id. at 6. Appellants argue that because "Jalali expressly states that 'a significant feature' of J alali' s air handling system is the particular damper configurations described by Jalali," there is "no legitimate reason ... to modify Jalali's air handling system to REMOVE and REPLACE the damper 4 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 mechanisms." Br. 13-20. According to Appellants, because Baker's damper is "for a blower for cooling a computer server, or computer system," Baker "does not teach or suggest a back draft damper assembly for use in an air handling system," and, thus, the skilled artisan "would not simply interchange a back draft damper from an existing ... [ air handling system] with a back draft damper from the electronic component cooling field associated with Baker," because of allegedly different performance requirements of an air handling system such as Jalali's. Id. at 20-24 ( emphasis omitted). As such, Appellants contend that Baker constitutes non-analogous art and, moreover, "Baker does not provide any suggestion that ... [its] back draft damper would provide an improvement over Jalali's original back draft damper." Id. at 14, 24, and 26. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the following reasons. In a first instance, because Jalali states that "[a] significant feature of the air handling unit 10 is the provision of at least one damper mechanism at one end of each compartment," we do not agree with Appellants that Jalali is restricted to any particular configuration of a damper mechanism or means to open and close its vanes. Jalali, para. 28 ( emphasis omitted). Secondly, we note that the Examiner has articulated a sufficient reason for modifying the dampers of Jalali with Baker's independently rotating and vertically oriented vanes, namely, "to improve airflow." Final Act. 6. Moreover, Baker supports the Examiner's reasoning. Specifically, Baker discloses that pivoting vanes installed horizontally, which use gravity to close when blower failure occurs, "greatly increases the impedance of the 5 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 air exiting the blower" because "the blower must overcome the gravitational forces on the vanes." Baker col. 2, 11. 6-12. However, according to Baker, providing vertically oriented vanes generates "less impedance than the previous horizontal vane design as gravitational forces need not be overcome" due to "creat[ing] a sufficiently low pressure relative to ambient air to force the damper vanes closed." Id. at col. 4, 11. 24--30; see also id. at col. 5, 11. 1---6. Thirdly, with respect to Appellants' argument that Baker constitutes non-analogous art, we note that "[t]he analogous art inquiry is a factual one, requiring inquiry into the similarities of the problems and the closeness of the subject matter as viewed by a person of ordinary skill [in the art]." S'cient[flc Plastic Prods., Inc. v. Biotage AB, 766 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Criteria for detennining whether prior art is analogous may be summarized as "(l) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." Id. at 1359 (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 6561 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In this case, the particular problem Appellants were concerned with is that for prior art gravity actuated dampers with vanes that rotate about horizontal axes, "it takes a considerable amount of airflow to fully open the vanes and if the airflow is to[ o] low to fully open the vanes, the vanes will create excess drag and overall efficiency of the system is reduced." Spec. para. 3. As Baker addresses the same problem, as discussed supra, Baker constitutes 6 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 analogous art. See Baker, col. 2, 11. 4--12, col. 4, 11. 29-30, and col. 5, 11. 1- 6. Fourthly, Appellants' assertion that because of differences in design considerations between Jalali's air handling system and Baker's blowers for computer servers (systems), Baker's dampers would not satisfy the performance requirements of Jalali's air handling system is unsupported attorney argument and cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, obviousness does not require that all of the features of the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 ( CCP A 1981 ). In this case, the Examiner is not proposing to replace the vanes of Jalali's damper with the vanes of Baker, but rather to modify the vanes of J alali' s damper with independent rotating and vertically oriented vanes, as taught by Baker. A person of ordinary skill in the art in the air handling system would readily understand from Baker that providing a damper having independent rotating and vertically oriented vanes generates "less impedance," and, thus, provides "improved flow." The skilled artisan in air handling systems would know how to implement rotating and vertically oriented vanes, as taught by Baker, in Jalali's air handling system. After all, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007). Finally, Appellants assert that the Examiner's modification "would render Jalali unsatisfactory for its intended purpose" because, without either an electric motor and controller system or horizontal vane orientation to close by gravity, "Jalali's vanes would not close" and, moreover, would be 7 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 "unable to provide an air seal." Br. 26-28. Thus, according to Appellants, "the specific teachings of Jalali greatly outweighs any suggestion of Baker" because "Jalali and Baker describe damper configurations that directly conflict with one another." Id. at 28-29. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Baker specifically discloses that when a blower failure occurs the independent rotating and vertically oriented vanes close due to a "sufficiently low pressure relative to ambient air" to "prevent substantial exhaust backflow," and, thus, form a seal. Baker, col. 4, 11. 24--28. Although we appreciate that Jalali's electrically controlled dampers may "provide a better seal," it is well established that if "the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another." Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In this case, even assuming arguendo that the air seal provided by a damper having vanes independently rotating and vertically oriented, as taught by Baker, may be weaker than that provided by Jalali's damper, this would not have dissuaded a person having ordinary skill in the art from making such a modification to obtain the benefit of reduced impedance. See Baker, col. 2, 11. 4--12, col. 4, 11. 29-30, and col. 5, 11. 1---6. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as unpatentable over Jalali and Baker. Claims 19, 31, and 32 fall with claim 1. 8 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 25, and 27 With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 6, and 23, Appellants reiterate their arguments that "[ t ]here is no legitimate reason to orient J alali' s vanes to independently rotate about a vertical axis" and, that, such a "damper will not form a sufficient air seal." Br. 29-30. As to the rejection of claims 8-10, 12, 16, 25, and 27, Appellants rely on the arguments discussed supra. Id. at 30. Appellants' arguments fail to apprise us of error for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we likewise sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 16, 23, 25, and 27 over the combined teachings of Jalali and Baker. Rejection II Appellants argue claims 2, 3, 20, and 21 together as a group. We select claim 2 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 3, 20, and 21 standing or falling with claim 2. Br. 32. In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that "Aakalu is not concerned with the field of air handling system," that is, "Aakalu is not analogous art," and, thus, "would provide no motivation to modify an air handling system damper as claimed." Id. With respect to Appellants' argument that Aakalu constitutes non- analogous art, we note that the problem Aakalu addresses is that in a forced air cooling system provided with at least two fans, "[i]f one of the fans 9 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 should fail, it acts as an air inlet for the functioning fan( s ), thereby bypassing the normal cooling path and adversely impacting the cooling of the heat generating equipment." Aakalu, col. 1, 11. 5-16. Similarly, Appellants address the same problem of "prevent[ing] air from flowing in the direction opposite normal air flow [in a multi-fan system] when the fan that is creating the airflow is not operating." Spec. para. 2. Furthermore, in regards to motivation, we note that although the requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation (the TSM test established by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals) to combine known elements in order to show that the combination is obvious may be "a helpful insight," it cannot be used as a rigid and mandatory formula. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19. Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner has articulated an adequate reason for modification, namely, "to prevent airflow from coming through the non operating fan." Final Act. 10 (citing col. 3, 11. 13-27, Fig. 5). Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Aakalu or identify any flaw in the Examiner's reasoning. As such, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 2 as unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Aakalu. Claims 3, 20, and 21 fall with claim 2. 10 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Rejection III Appellants argue claims 4, 18, and 22 together as a group. We select claim 4 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 18 and 22 standing or falling with claim 4. Br. 33. In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that Soderlund's disclosure of "a backflow preventing valve for use in a computer system" constitutes non- analogous art, and, moreover, "would provide no legitimate reason for the person of ordinary skill [in the art] to modify the air handling system of Jalali." Id. Soderlund constitutes analogous art because it addresses the same problems addressed by Appellants. Specifically, Appellants are concerned with the inefficiency of an airflow system in which the opening and closing of vanes generates drag due to the effect of gravity acting on the vanes. See Spec. para. 3. In a similar manner, Soderlund is concerned with "minimizing the flow resistance of an air cooling system" constituting "vanes that are pivotal about parallel axes" between open and closed positions. Soderlund, para. 10. Furthermore, we note that the Examiner articulates an adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings for modifying the system of Jalali "with the rotational axis offset at a non-orthogonal angle of Soderlund," namely, "so that the vanes are urged to towards a closed position [to] seal the damper assembly when no airflow [is present]." Final Act. 14. Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Soderlund or identify any flaw in the Examiner's reasoning. 11 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 4 as unpatentable over Jalali, Soderlund, and Baker. Claims 18 and 22 fall with claim 4. Re} ection IV Appellants argue claims 7 and 24 together as a group. We select claim 7 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 24 standing or falling with claim 7. Br. 33-34. In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that Sievert's ventilator is not used in an air handling system, but rather in "a barn or similar building used for housing animals," and, thus, would provide no reason to modify Jalali's air handling system. Id. at 34. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Sievert, like Appellants, addresses the problem of closing the vanes of an airflow system once airflow from a blower has stopped. Compare Sievert, col. 1, 11. 19-24, with Spec. paras. 2-3. Furthermore, the Examiner articulates an adequate reasoning with rational underpinnings for modifying the system of Jalali "with a frame mounted to have vanes offset at an non-orthogonal angle of Sievert to urge the vanes to the close position." Final Act. 19. Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Sievert or identify any flaw in the Examiner's reasoning. Lastly, with respect to Appellants mentioning that Sievert dates back to 1931, we note that absent a showing of long-felt need or the failure of others, the mere passage of time without the claimed invention is not 12 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 evidence ofnonobviousness. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 7 as unpatentable over Jalali, Sievert, and Baker. Claim 24 falls with claim 7. Rejection V Appellants argue claims 11, 13, 17, 26, and 28 together as a group. We select claim 11 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 13, 17, 26, and 28 standing or falling with claim 11. Br. 34--35. The Examiner finds that although the combined teachings of J alali and Baker fail to disclose an arcuate frame, as called for by claim 11, nonetheless, Davis discloses a frame having an arcuate member (frame 62 including rails 62 a, b, c having radiused edges), and, thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan "to modify [the damper ofJ Jalali with [the] arcuate frame member of Davis to have a smooth curve section in order to guide air through the frame with little turbulence." Final Act. 22-23 ( citing Davis, col. 7, 1. 43---col. 8, 1. 10, Fig. 7). In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that as Davis discloses a horizontal vane configuration in which vanes are closed by gravity, "[i]ndividual features of such a vane would not simply be substituted into the vanes of the back draft damper as claimed which rotate independently and in response to local slipstreams, not gravity." Br. 3 5 ( emphasis omitted). 13 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 We are not persuaded by such arguments as they are not commensurate with the Examiner's rejection discussed supra, which incorporates the radiused edges of Davis' frame into the air handling system of Jalali, and not features of the vanes themselves, as Appellants contend. More specifically, Davis discloses that "[t]he large radiused edges [on the rails of the frame shutter assembly] minimize the disruption of air as it moves into the inner cavity ... which is important for the efficiency of the fan assembly." Davis, col. 7, 11. 58-63. The skilled artisan would readily appreciate that such a feature would be advantageous regardless of the horizontal or vertical orientation of the vanes. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 11 as unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Davis. Claims 13, 17, 26, and 28 fall with claim 11. Re} ection VI Appellants argue claims 14 and 29 together as a group. We select claim 14 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 29 standing or falling with claim 14. Br. 35-36. The Examiner finds that although the combined teachings of J alali and Baker fail to disclose a cutout on the trailing edge of its vanes, as called for by claim 14, nonetheless, Ilg discloses such a feature (the inwardly bent 12 of lower free edge of vane 10 that overlaps the upper edge of the next vane 10), and, thus, concludes that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan "to modify the prior art reference of J alali with a trailing edge with [the] cutout of Ilg to further seal the adjacent vanes when in a closed 14 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 position to prevent airflow from entering." Final Act. 25 (citing Ilg 1, 11. 90- 99, Fig. 3). In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that Ilg's shutter mechanism is not used for an air handling system, but rather for "a ventilating fan that draws off gas and other foul air from a building," and, thus, would provide no reason to modify Jalali's air handling system. Br. 35. Appellants further contend that as "Ilg' s shutter mechanism orients the vanes to rotate about a horizontal axis," such features would not be translated into a system where the vanes rotate about a vertical axis. Id. at 35-36. Appellants' arguments does not identify any flaws in the Examiner's findings, with respect to the teachings of Ilg, or the reasoning for combining the teachings of Jalali, Baker, and Ilg. The skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the sealing feature provided by Ilg' s cutout would be advantageous regardless of the horizontal or vertical orientation of the vanes. Moreover, like Appellants' and Jalali's air handling units for supplying air to a building, Ilg' s ventilating fan likewise supplies air to a building. Compare Ilg 1, 11. 9-14, with Br. 22, and Jalali, Abstract. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 14 as unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Ilg. Claim 29 falls with claim 14. 15 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Re} ection VII Appellants argue claims 15 and 30 together as a group. We select claim 15 as the representative claim to decide the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claim 3 0 standing or falling with claim 15. Br. 3 6. The Examiner finds that although the combined teachings of J alali and Baker fail to disclose a gasket, as called for by claim 15, nonetheless, Reichow discloses a gasket 60 located between frame members 24 and vanes 36, and, thus, concludes that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan "to modify the prior art reference of Jalali with a gasket positioned between vanes and frame [ as taught by] Reichow to seal the airflow path between the vanes and frame to prevent airflow from entering." Final Act. 26-27 (citing Reichow, col. 3, 11. 20-50, Fig. 1). In addition to the arguments discussed supra, which we did not find persuasive, Appellants further argue that because Reichow's damper is opened by a motor and torque arm, Reichow would not provide a reason to modify Jalali's back draft damper to arrive at the claimed invention. Br. 36. Appellants' arguments do not identify any flaws in the Examiner's findings, with respect to the teachings of Reichow, or the reasoning for combining the teachings of Jalali, Baker, and Reichow. More specifically, it is not apparent, and Appellants do not adequately explain, why the sealing ability of a gasket would be any less applicable to Jalali's damper than to a damper having vanes activated by a motor and torque arm, as taught by Reichow. 16 Appeal2017-004276 Application 13/672,300 Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 15 as unpatentable over Jalali, Baker, and Reichow. Claim 30 falls with claim 15. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation