Ex Parte Iyengar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13115590 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/115,590 05/25/2011
126453 7590 06/20/2016
International Business Machines Corporation - IT
Rich Lau - IPLaw Department
2455 South Road, B/008-2
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Madhusudan K. Iyengar
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.
POU920100186US1 3758
EXAMINER
ZERPHEY, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3744
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
poiplaw2@us.ibm.com
ituchman@tuchmanlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MADHUSUDAN K. IYENGAR and
ROGER R. SCHMIDT
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JOHN C. KERINS, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION.
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A data center comprising:
a plurality of cabinets configured to house computer
equipment; and
at least two main coolant supply lines from which the
plurality of cabinets receive coolant; and
wherein each of the cabinets includes a cooler with at least
two radiators, each radiator receiving coolant from different
main coolant supply lines.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. 1
II. Claims 1-3, 5, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Sato (US 2008/0232064 Al, pub. Sept. 25, 2008).
III. Claims 4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sato and Delia (US 2009/0188659 Al, pub. July
30, 2009).
IV. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sato and Symonds (US 2006/0151147 Al, pub.
July 13, 2006).
1 The Examiner lists "35 U.S.C. § l 12(b )"as the statutory basis for the
indefiniteness rejection. Final Act. 2. However, the effective filing date of
the present application is May 25, 2011, which is prior to March 16, 2013,
the date on which the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America
Invents Act (AIA) became effective; thus, the correct statutory basis for the
rejection is 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (the pre-AIA predecessor to
35 U.S.C. § 112 (b)).
2
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
V. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sato and Novotny (US 2009/0071636 Al, pub. Mar. 19,
2009).
VI. Claims 9--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sato, Symonds, and Novotny.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I-Indefiniteness
The basis of the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection is that "there is
insufficient antecedent basis for" the limitation "the cooler" in line 2 of
claims 3 and 15 because "claim 1 introduced a plurality of cabinets each
containing a cooler" and "it is unclear to which cooler 'the cooler refers."'
Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner "[b ]y merely stating 'the cooler' as
claim 3 (and also 15) does, it is not clear if the limitation refers to one or all
of the coolers recited in claim 1." Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that claims 3 and 15 are ambiguous as to
whether "the cooler" refers to one or all of the coolers recited in claim 1.
There are two plausible interpretations of claims 3 and 15. The first
plausible interpretation is that the radiators of each of the plurality of coolers
(of the plurality of cabinets) are positioned as called for in claims 3 and 15.
The second plausible interpretation is that the radiators of at least one of the
coolers are positioned as called for in claims 3 and 15. "[I]f a claim is
amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is
justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under
3
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." E'x parte Miyazaki,
89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BP AI 2008) (precedential).
For the above reasons, the Examiner's determination that claims 3 and
15 are indefinite is correct. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 3
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We also determine that claims 1 and 13, and claims 2-12 and 14--16,
which depend from claim 1, are indefinite for the additional reasons
explained below in the New Ground of Rejection.
New Ground of Rejection-Indefiniteness
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b ), we reject claims
1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16:
The limitation "at least two main coolant supply lines from which the
plurality of cabinets receive coolant" in claim 1 is ambiguous, and thus
indefinite, because there are two plausible interpretations of this
language. See Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1211. A first plausible
interpretation is that the plurality of cabinets receive coolant from each of
the at least two main coolant supply lines (i.e., each main coolant supply line
must supply coolant to each of the plurality of cabinets) and the second
plausible interpretation is that the plurality of cabinets receive coolant from
the at least two main coolant supply lines in the aggregate (i.e., no particular
main coolant supply line need supply coolant to more than one cabinet, but
the plurality of cabinets each receive coolant from one or more of the at least
two main coolant supply lines). 2
2 Appellants' Specification describes an embodiment in which "[ e Jach main
coolant supply line 208 and 210 supplies coolant to a plurality of cabinets
4
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
The limitation "each radiator receiving coolant from different main
coolant supply lines" in claim 1 is confusing and/or misleading, especially
when read in light of Appellants' disclosure. When read with strict
adherence to customary rules of grammar, this limitation suggests that each
radiator receives coolant from plural "main coolant supply
lines." Appellants' Specification, on the other hand, describes each radiator
of each cabinet receiving coolant from one main coolant supply line, with
the main coolant supply line from which each radiator receives coolant being
a different one of the at least two main coolant supply lines than the main
coolant supply line from which any other of the at least two radiators of that
cabinet receive coolant. Spec., paras. 5-7, 20, 24, 25; Figs. 1, 2. In
determining whether a claim is indefinite, the claim's language must be
analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of the content of the particular
application disclosure, the teachings of prior art, and the claim interpretation
that would be given by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art at the time the invention was made. In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
1262, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing MPEP § 2173.02). In light of this
200" and "[t]he first coolant line 201 receives coolant from the plurality of
cabinets 200 and the second coolant line 203 supplies coolant to the plurality
of cabinets 200." Spec., paras. 24, 25. However, Appellants' Specification
gives no indication that supplying coolant to a plurality of cabinets from one
or more supply lines common to the plurality of cabinets, rather than from
individual supply lines for each cabinet, is critical or essential to Appellants'
invention. Rather, it is the provision of a different main coolant supply line
for each radiator of each cabinet that appears to be critical to achieving the
redundancy sought by Appellants' invention. See Spec. 19; Abstract. We
must be careful not to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description into the claim if the claim language is broader than the
embodiment. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
underlying disclosure in Appellants' Specification, there is ambiguity as to
whether the limitation "each radiator receiving coolant from different main
coolant supply lines" in claim 1 should be construed as a grammatically-
imprecise attempt to claim that each radiator receives coolant from a
different main coolant supply line (i.e., from a main coolant supply line that
is a different one of the at least two main coolant supply lines than the main
coolant supply line from which any other of the at least two radiators of that
cabinet receive coolant), as disclosed in the Specification, or, consistent with
the customary rules of grammar, as requiring that each radiator receive
coolant from plural main coolant supply lines.
For the above reasons, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-12 and 14--16,
which depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, incorporate the
limitations of claim 1 and, therefore, are likewise indefinite. 3
Claim 13:
It is not clear whether claim 13 is directed to "[a] cabinet," as recited
in the preamble, or to a system comprising a plurality of cabinets and at least
two main coolant supply lines supplying coolant to said plurality of
cabinets. The use of the verb "connects," rather than language such as
"adapted to connect" or "for connecting," suggests that the claim may
require positive connection of each of the radiators to a different main
3 Appellants' use of the term "supply line" as inclusive of both a first coolant
line receiving coolant from the cabinets and a second coolant line supplying
coolant to the cabinets (see claim 2; Spec., para. 18) appears somewhat
unconventional. Sato's use of terminology such as "coolant-supply duct 21"
for the coolant supply side of the circuit and "coolant-recovery duct 23" for
the coolant recovery or receiving side of the coolant circuit reflects more
conventional nomenclature. See Sato, para. 79.
6
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
coolant supply line. Similarly, the use of the verb "supplying," rather than
language such as "adapted to supply" or "for supplying," suggests positive
connection of a main coolant supply line to a plurality of cabinets. The
preamble, on the other hand, recites only "[a] cabinet," thereby suggesting
that the claim requires only a cabinet, including at least two radiators. Thus,
it is unclear whether claim 13 should be read as directed to a system
comprising a plurality of cabinets and at least two main coolant supply lines
supplying coolant to said plurality of cabinets or to only a cabinet, including
at least two radiators, with each radiator being adapted for connection to its
own supply line.
Moreover, if claim 13 is read as being directed to the system, it is not
clear whether each of the plurality of cabinets must include at least two
radiators, or whether a system in which only one of the plurality of cabinets
includes at least two radiators would satisfy the claim. Additionally, if the
claim is read as a system claim, it is not clear to what "said main coolant
supply line" refers. The language "to a different main coolant supply line"
suggests that the system includes at least two main coolant supply lines, one
connected to each of the at least two radiators. It is unclear whether "said
main coolant supply line" refers to one of the at least two coolant supply
lines (i.e., at least one of the supply lines must connect to the plurality of
cabinets), to each of the at least two coolant supply lines (i.e., each of the at
least two coolant supply lines must connect to the plurality of cabinets), or to
all of the at least two coolant supply lines in the aggregate (i.e., each of the
plurality of cabinets is connected to one of the supply lines, but no single
supply line necessarily is connected to the plurality of cabinets).
For the above reasons, claim 13 is indefinite.
7
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
Rejections II-VI-Anticipation and Obviousness
Claim 13:
Having determined that claim 13 is indefinite, we do not sustain the
rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sato
because to do so would require speculation as to the scope of the
claims. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
that the Board erred in affirming an anticipation rejection of indefinite
claims); cf In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862---63 (CCPA 1962) (holding that
the Board erred in affirming a rejection of indefinite claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), because the rejection was based on speculative assumptions as to
the meaning of the claims). It should be understood, however, that our
decision in this regard is based solely on the indefiniteness of the claimed
subject matter, and does not reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence
applied in support of the rejections.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16:
Next, we tum to the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 and 14--16
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. We recognize the inconsistency implicit in
our rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention with a
holding that these claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or
103. Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the interpretation of
a claim and no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to the terms in a
claim, a determination as to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 is not
made. See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1300; In re Steele, 305 F.2d at 862-
63. However, in this instance, we consider it to be desirable to address the
rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 to avoid the
8
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See E'x parte Ionescu, 222
USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984) (expressing the view that where a claim is
subject to more than one interpretation, one of which would render the
claims unpatentable over the prior art, the USPTO should enter simultaneous
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 or 103, to avoid piecemeal appellate review).
For purposes of reviewing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b)
and 103(a), we interpret the limitation "at least two main coolant supply
lines from which the plurality of cabinets receive coolant" in claim 1 as
requiring only that the plurality of cabinets receive coolant from the at least
two main coolant supply lines in the aggregate (i.e., no particular main
coolant supply line need supply coolant to more than one cabinet, but the
plurality of cabinets each receive coolant from one or more of the at least
two main coolant supply lines) and the limitation "each radiator receiving
coolant from different main coolant supply lines" in claim 1 as requiring that
each radiator of each cabinet receive coolant from at least one main coolant
supply line, with the main coolant supply line from which each radiator
receives coolant being a different one of the at least two main coolant supply
lines than the main coolant supply line from which any other of the at least
two radiators of that cabinet receive coolant, consistent with the disclosure
in Appellants' Specification and drawings. Spec., paras. 5-7, 20, 24, 25;
Figs. 1, 2. Therefore, we make a determination below as to the patentability
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 of claims 1-12 and 14--16 in the interest of
judicial economy.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12, 14, and 15:
9
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
The Examiner finds that Sato discloses every limitation of claim 1,
including, in pertinent part, "at least two main coolant supply lines from
which the plurality of cabinets receive coolant (main lines composed of 17
and 18 of fig 6B for each radiator lOA, lOB, and lOC)." Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants argue that "Sato fails to disclose at least two main coolant supply
lines from which the plurality of cabinets receive coolant," as called for in
independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 8 (underlining omitted). More specifically,
Appellants submit that "Sato does not disclose 'main lines composed of 17
and 18 of fig 6B for each radiator lOA, lOB, and lOC"' and contend that
"Sato fails to contemplate such an arrangement." Id. at 8-9 (underlining
omitted). Appellants point out that "Sato states, 'The three cooling coils
lOA, lOB, and lOC each have a header 19 provided with a cooling-water
inlet 17 and a cooling water outlet 18."' Appeal Br. 8 (underlining omitted)
(citing Sato, para. 78). Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the
art "would not consider the cooling water outlet 18 of Sato as a main coolant
supply lines [sic] from which the plurality of cabinets receive coolant." Id.
As the Examiner points out, Sato discloses each of the plurality of
cabinets 10 (one of which is depicted in Figure 6B) comprising at least two
(i.e., three) radiators (cooling coils lOA, lOB, lOC), with a main coolant
supply line for each radiator. Ans. 8. Moreover, as also pointed out by the
Examiner, the Examiner's reading of each main coolant supply line on the
portion of the cooling water circuit including both the inlet line to and the
outlet line from each radiator is consistent with Appellants' definition of
main coolant supply lines as including both a supply line and a return line.
Id. at 8-9 (citing Fig. 1); see also claim 2; Spec., para. 18. Notably, the
Examiner does not read one main coolant supply line on one inlet 17 and
10
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
another main coolant supply line on the corresponding outlet 18. Rather, the
Examiner reads one main coolant supply line on one inlet 17 and the
corresponding outlet 18 from one cooling coil (for example, cooling coil
lOA) and reads a second main coolant supply line on a different inlet 17 and
its corresponding outlet 18 from a second cooling coil (for example, cooling
coil lOB). 4 Ans. 8-9. Additionally, as each ofSato's cabinets 10 has
branch lines 24 and 25 leading to and from each inlet 17 and outlet 18,
respectively, of each cooling coil, Sato's plurality of cabinets receive coolant
from the plurality of main coolant supply lines, as called for in claim 1. See
Sato, Figs. lB, 6B. We discern no error in the Examiner's reading of the
claimed "main coolant supply lines" on the inlet and outlet branches
connecting Sato's coolant-supply duct 21 and coolant-recovery duct 23 to
cabinets 10.
For the above reasons, Appellants fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 14, and 15, for which Appellants do not present
any separate arguments for patentability and which, thus, fall with claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sato. See Appeal Br. 10 ("Their
respective dependent claims, which recite yet further distinguishing features,
are also patentable over the prior art and require no further discussion
herein.").
4 Although the Examiner cites reference numerals 17 and 18 for the inlet
lines, Sato describes branch ducts 24 leading to each inlet 17 and branch
ducts 25 leading from each outlet 18. Sato, para. 79; Fig. 6B.
11
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
Claim 4:
Claim 4 requires that "the coolers include an air flow barrier
configured to prevent air flow to one of the two radiators during a cooling
failure at one of the radiators." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Claim 16
contains a substantially similar limitation. Id. at 1 7. The Examiner relies on
Delia to teach an air flow barrier in order to prevent coolant from contacting
the electrical components. Final Act. 4--5. According to the Examiner,
"Delia teaches a spray shield 200 which is analogous to the air flow barrier
of claim 4 (and also 16)"; "[t]he solid shield 200 certainly prevents airflow
through the space [in] which the shield is located"; and "[a] solid object
preventing airflow in the space in which it is located is inherent because
airflow does not occur through a solid medium." Ans. 9--10.
Appellants contend that "Delia makes no mention of the upper spray
shield 200 preventing air flow to one of the two radiators during a cooling
failure at one of the radiators," and "[t]he Examiner's allegation that such air
flow blockage is inherent in Delia is completely speculative and is not
supported by any evidence." Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5---6 (underlining
omitted).
Delia's Figure 1 illustrates "an existing rear door air to water heat
exchanger and related fluid water supply system," with "[a]ir purging valve
118 for the supply manifold 108, and air-purging valve 120 for the return
manifold 110 [to] remove air from the coils ... that may affect the ability of
the coils to remove heat from the rear door 100." Delia, para. 6. Moreover,
Delia discloses that to address the problem that
the air purging valves become a significant liability when they
fail . . . [ t ]he upper spray shield 200 is affixed to the existing
protective barrier or to the front door housing ... and prevents
12
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
water or liquids from entering the inlet airflow during an air
purging valve failure.
Delia, para. 25. Delia describes that shield 200 "guides the leaks into a drain
channel 206 down the side of the front door cover and away from the
electronics" (id.), but does not describe preventing air flow to at least one
radiator.
In light of the above, the Examiner has not articulated an apparent
reason, with any rational underpinnings, why, in view of the teachings of
Delia regarding an upper spray shield to guide the leaks into a drain channel,
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to
modify Sato by including the upper spray shield of Delia in such a manner
that it would prevent air flow to one of the two radiators during a cooling
failure at one of the radiators. The Examiner fails to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that Delia's shield inherently prevents air
flow to one of the two radiators during a cooling failure at one of the
radiators, as required in claims 4 and 16, and, thus, the Examiner;s
articulated reasoning in support of the conclusion of obviousness lacks
rational underpinnings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato and
Delia.
Claims 6-11:
In contesting the rejections of these claims, Appellants merely rely on
the same arguments advanced against the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br.
12-13. For similar reasons to those discussed above, these arguments fail to
apprise us of error in the rejections of claims 6-11. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sato and Symonds; the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
13
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
unpatentable over Sato and Novotny; and the rejection of claims 9--11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato, Symonds, and Novotny.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Sato is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Sato is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato and Delia is REVERSED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato and Symonds is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sato and Novotny is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato, Symonds, and Novotny is AFFIRMED.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R
§ 41.50(b ).
FINALITY OF DECISION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
14
Appeal2014-005345
Application 13/115,590
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered
by the Examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the Examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
15