Ex Parte Jiang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 13, 2009

10774805 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HONG JIANG, BAL SANKPAL, STEVEN THOMAS, and
TIMOTHY ALLEN
____________

Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 February 13, 2009
____________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hong Jiang et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 17-19. Claims 10-16 and 20-
32, the only other pending claims, have been withdrawn from consideration.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).
The Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system and method for
controlling a clutch in a transfer case by operating the clutch partially
engaged, while avoiding excess heat accumulation in the clutch.
Specification 3:8-12. Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for controlling a clutch that driveably
connects an input and an output, the method
comprising the steps of:
producing input torque at the clutch;
operating the clutch partially engaged;
calculating the temperature of the clutch;
establishing a reference clutch temperature;
comparing the calculated clutch temperature
and reference clutch temperature; and
if the calculated clutch temperature equals or
exceeds the reference clutch temperature, then
increasing the degree of clutch engagement
sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of
the clutch.

17. In a transfer case having first and second
outputs, a system for controlling a clutch that
driveably connects the first output and second
output, comprising:
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

3
means for operating the clutch partially
engaged;
means for calculating the temperature of the
clutch;
establishing a reference clutch temperature;
means for comparing the calculated
temperature of the clutch and reference clutch
temperature; and
means for producing an output signal for
increasing the degree of clutch engagement
sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of
the clutch, if the calculated temperature of the
clutch equals or exceeds the reference clutch
temperature.

The Rejections
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Maguire
(US 6,095,946, issued August 1, 2000) and claims 1-9 and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salecker (US 6,006,149,
issued December 21, 1999) and Maguire.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

OPINION
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that Maguire does not teach increasing the degree of
clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of the
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

4
clutch, if the calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds the reference
clutch temperature, as called for in independent claims 1 and 17, and thus
does not anticipate the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Accordingly, the threshold issue in this appeal is whether Maguire teaches
this feature.
Other issues raised in contesting the anticipation rejection are whether
Maguire teaches comparing a calculated clutch temperature with a reference
temperature, as called for in claims 1 and 17, and a transfer case, as called
for in claim 17.

Facts Pertinent to the Anticipation Rejection
FF1 Maguire’s invention relates to fluid operated friction torque
transmitting mechanisms, such as a clutch 18 in a transmission also
comprising a conventional planetary gear arrangement 20 and electro-
hydraulic control 22. Maguire, col. 1, ll. 6-8; col. 2, ll. 50-54.
FF2 Maguire’s clutch 18 comprises friction discs or steel plates and a fluid
operated piston for enforcing engagement between the discs or plates.
Maguire, col. 3, ll. 1-6.
FF3 Maguire describes a friction device having discs or plates alternately
connected between an input structure, such as a shaft, hub, or gear,
and an output structure, such as a shaft, hub, or gear, to establish a
drive ratio between the transmission input and output. Maguire, col.
1, ll. 14-22. Maguire does not explicitly teach a transmission having
first and second outputs.
FF4 Maguire teaches that friction resulting from clutch slip (relative
slipping between discs) during the slipping portion of the engagement
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

5
cycle causes an increase in disc temperature. Maguire also teaches
cooling the discs by fluid flow when the discs are completely engaged
or disengaged. Maguire, col. 3, ll. 12-21.
FF5 Maguire’s electro-hydraulic control 22 includes a CPU that controls,
inter alia, solenoid valves, some of which control the engagement and
disengagement of the friction mechanisms, and the maximum
engagement pressure in the friction devices. Maguire, col. 3, ll. 43-
62.
FF6 Maguire teaches sensing or calculating the present temperature of
each friction device. Maguire, col. 4, ll. 3-6. If a shift (i.e., the
engagement of one friction device and the simultaneous
disengagement of another device, which may be an upshift or a
downshift) is requested, Maguire’s CPU calculates the heat energy
that will be transmitted during such a shift and the resultant expected
friction device temperature at the end of the shift. Maguire, col. 1, ll.
23-29; col. 4, ll. 7-29. If the algorithm carried out by the CPU
determines that the friction device temperature will exceed the design
limit (reference temperature), the algorithm determines adaptive
values for, inter alia, shift times, such that the shift will not result in a
temperature increase above the design limit. Maguire, col. 4, ll. 30-
39. In accordance with the adaptive measures initiated by the
algorithm in the event that the calculated temperature will exceed the
design limit, Maguire teaches making the shift with “increased apply
pressure at the friction device.” Maguire, col. 4, ll. 43-44. In other
words, Maguire teaches increasing the degree of engagement
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

6
sufficiently to reduce the temperature rise during the shift, so that the
shift will not result in a temperature increase above the design limit.
FF7 As described by Appellants, “[a] transfer case is a device located in a
motor vehicle drive line between the output of a geared power
transmission and front and rear driveshafts for transmitting power to
the wheels.” Specification 1:12-14.

Analysis
The above facts (FF5 and FF6 in particular) show that Maguire does
teach increasing the degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the
calculated temperature of the clutch, if the calculated clutch temperature
equals or exceeds the reference clutch temperature, as called for in
independent claims 1 and 17. Appellants’ argument to the contrary thus is
not persuasive.
Appellants additionally argue that Maguire does not disclose mutually
comparing the current clutch temperature and a reference temperature.
Appeal Br. 7 and 9. This argument is not persuasive, because claims 1 and
17 do not require that the current clutch temperature be compared with a
reference temperature. Rather, claims 1 and 17 require calculating a clutch
temperature and comparing the calculated clutch temperature and a reference
temperature. As noted in our findings above (FF6), Maguire does teach
calculating an expected friction device temperature at the end of the shift
and comparing that calculated temperature with a design limit (reference
temperature).
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

7
Appellants present no other arguments against the rejection of claim 1
as being anticipated by Maguire. For the above reasons, Appellants’
arguments fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants also argue that Maguire does not teach a transfer case, as
called for in claim 17. Appeal Br. 8. As noted in our findings above,
according to Appellants’ Specification, “[a] transfer case is a device located
in a motor vehicle drive line between the output of a geared power
transmission and front and rear driveshafts for transmitting power to the
wheels.” FF7. While claim 17 does not require any particular positioning of
the transfer case relative to other components of a vehicle, claim 17 does
require a clutch control system “[i]n a transfer case having first and second
outputs,” thereby providing some context for the term “transfer case.” As
noted in our findings above (FF3), Maguire does not explicitly teach a
transmission having first and second outputs. Nor does the Examiner
provide any explanation as to how Maguire satisfies this limitation.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument demonstrates error in the rejection of
claim 17, and claims 18 and 19 depending from claim 17.

The Obviousness Rejection
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the patentability
of claims 4 and 5 apart from independent claim 1, from which they depend.
Therefore, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), claims 4 and 5
stand or fall with representative claim 1.
The Examiner’s position in rejecting claim 1 is that it would have
been obvious to implement the clutch temperature limit control as taught by
Maguire within the clutch temperature monitoring and actuating system of
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

8
Salecker because both are directed to monitoring clutch temperature as it
relates to torque transmission through a slipping clutch arrangement and
both act to prevent excessive heat related stressing by limiting or eliminating
clutch slip when temperatures warrant so as to operate the clutch at a
reduced temperature. Answer 8. Appellants contend that no reason or
motivation to combine Salecker and Maguire is articulated by the Examiner
or taught in the references. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellants also argue that,
even if combined, Salecker and Maguire do not teach all elements of the
claims.
Specifically, Appellants argue that neither Salecker nor Maguire
teaches increasing the degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the
calculated temperature of the clutch, if the calculated clutch temperature
equals or exceeds the reference clutch temperature (Appeal Br. 12), and
mutually comparing the current clutch temperature and a reference
temperature (Appeal Br. 13). As discussed above with respect to the
anticipation rejection of claim 1, we find that Maguire teaches increasing the
degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the calculated
temperature of the clutch, if the calculated clutch temperature equals or
exceeds the reference clutch temperature. Appellants’ argument that neither
Salecker nor Maguire teaches this feature thus is not persuasive. Appellants
also argue that Salecker and Maguire do not teach the specific limitations
recited in claims 2, 3, and 6-9, and a transfer case, as called for in claim 17.
Appeal Br. 13-19.
Accordingly, the additional issues for our consideration in deciding
the appeal of the obviousness rejection are:
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

9
(1) Do Appellants demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire? This issue turns on whether
(a) it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Maguire
of increasing the degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce
the calculated temperature of the clutch, if the calculated clutch
temperature equals or exceeds the reference clutch temperature, with
Salecker’s automated clutch actuating apparatus, and (b) either
Maguire or Salecker teaches comparing a calculated clutch
temperature and a reference temperature.
(2) Do Appellants’ arguments demonstrate error in the rejections of
claims 2, 3, and 6-9 as being unpatentable over Salecker and
Maguire? This issue turns on whether the Examiner has adequately
explained where the limitations recited in these dependent claims are
taught in either Salecker or Maguire or why it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate them in a
clutch control system of the type taught by Salecker and Maguire.
(3) Does Appellants’ argument that neither Salecker nor Maguire teaches
a transfer case demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
17 as being unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire?

Additional Facts Pertinent to the Obviousness Rejection
FF8 Salecker discloses an actuating apparatus or actor 15 or control unit
113 for controlling engagement and disengagement of a friction clutch
103 (torque transmitting system 3) in a transmission 4 or 104. The
transmission has an input from the prime mover 2, 102, such as an
engine, and an output axle or shaft 5, 105, which transmits torque to
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

10
the drive wheels via an axle 106 or a differential 6 and two drive
shafts. Salecker, col. 4, ll. 44-55; col. 5, ll. 33-42; col. 6, ll. 47-48;
figs. 1 and 2. Salecker describes only a single output from the
transmission 4 or 104.
FF9 The actor 15 or control unit 113 comprises an electric motor 19 or
112, which actuates piston 20 of a master cylinder 16 or 111 to engage
and disengage the clutch by way of pressurized fluid conduit 17 or
109 and slave cylinder 18 or 110. Salecker, col. 4, ll. 55-62; col. 6, ll.
47-67. The actor 15 or control unit 113 further includes electronics
for controlling the actor. Salecker, col. 4, ll. 63-65; col. 6, ll. 47-49.
FF10 Salecker teaches that clutch slip results in kinetic energy of rotation,
which is converted to friction heat, which in turn can lead to
overheating of the friction surfaces of the clutch and possibly to
destruction of the friction surfaces or even the entire clutch. Salecker,
col. 5, l. 66 to col. 6, l. 11.
FF11 Salecker’s control unit 113 ascertains, calculates, and/or determines
whether or not an excessive slip exists and initiates and/or carries out
undertakings to prevent an excessive stressing and/or destruction of
the torque transmitting system. Salecker, col. 9, ll. 25-35. Such a
determination involves the iterative calculation of anticipated
temperatures of components of the friction clutch on the basis of
signals from sensors, such as a shifting intent sensor, an RPM sensor,
and a throttle valve sensor. Salecker, col. 3, ll. 6-8; col. 5, ll. 1-11;
col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 10.
FF12 Salecker calculates the temperatures using equations which determine
and take into account heat capacities or thermal masses of the
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

11
component parts of interest. See Salecker, col. 3, ll. 9-44; col. 9, l. 36
to col. 15, l. 14; figs. 5-7.
FF13 Salecker teaches that when the calculated temperatures reach or
exceed a threshold value, it is possible to make adjustments to the
transmission or the torque transmitting system to ameliorate or
remedy the situation. Salecker, col. 15, ll. 27-32.
FF14 The Examiner finds that Salecker does not explicitly teach increasing
the degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the calculated
temperature of the clutch when a calculated clutch temperature equals
or exceeds a reference clutch temperature. Answer 7.
FF15 Salecker teaches that the setting of the electric motor 112 determines
the degree of engagement of the clutch. Salecker, col. 8, ll. 49-67.

Analysis
As shown in our findings above (FF11), Salecker teaches iteratively
calculating anticipated temperatures of components of the friction clutch on
the basis of signals from sensors, such as a shifting intent sensor, an RPM
sensor, and a throttle valve sensor. Maguire likewise teaches calculating an
expected friction device temperature at the end of the shift and comparing
that calculated temperature with a design limit (reference temperature).
Thus, both Salecker and Maguire satisfy the claim imitations of calculating a
temperature of the clutch and comparing the calculated clutch temperature
and a reference clutch temperature. Appellants’ argument directed to the
comparison of a clutch temperature and a reference temperature thus is not
persuasive.
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

12
We turn now to the issue of whether it would have been obvious to
combine Salecker and Maguire as proposed by the Examiner. While the
requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation 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 Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741 (2007). Further, while there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” Id.
As shown in our findings above, Salecker and Maguire both disclose
control systems for controlling the engagement and disengagement of
clutches in transmissions. FF1, FF5, FF8, FF9. Moreover, both references
teach monitoring and calculating clutch, or clutch component, temperatures
and taking adaptive measures in the operation of the clutch if it is
determined that the clutch temperature would otherwise exceed a
predetermined threshold or design limit. FF6 and FF11. Salecker also
teaches making adjustments in the clutch operation when the calculated
temperatures reach or exceed a threshold value. FF13. Although Salecker
does not explicitly state what those adjustments might entail, Salecker does
teach using an electric motor to control the degree of engagement of the
clutch. FF15. The Examiner finds that Salecker does not explicitly teach
the adaptive measure called for in claim 1, namely, increasing the degree of
clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of the
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

13
clutch when a calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds a reference
clutch temperature. Maguire, however, teaches this approach, as explained
in our discussion of the anticipation rejection of claim 1 above. To utilize
the approach taught by Maguire in combination with the temperature
calculating and clutch actuating method and system of Salecker is nothing
more than the mere application of a known technique to a piece of art ready
for the improvement, or the substitution of one element for another known in
the field. See Id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. “One of the ways in which
[claimed] subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the [claims].” Id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at
1742. In this case, both Salecker and Maguire evidence that the overheating
of clutch components due to clutch slip was a well known problem in the art
at the time of Appellants’ invention. FF3 and FF10. Moreover, Maguire
evidences that the technique of increasing the degree of clutch engagement
sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of the clutch when a
calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds a reference clutch
temperature was a known solution to that recognized problem. Appellants
fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Salecker and Maguire.
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over
Salecker and Maguire.
Appellants argue that the portions of Salecker relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting claim 2 do not teach the specific method steps recited
in claim 2. Appeal Br. 14. We agree with Appellants. On page 8 of the
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

14
Answer, the Examiner cites column 8, lines 49-67 and column 9, lines 25-35
of Salecker as teaching clutch slip adjustment for torque transmission while
limiting excessive clutch slip, but does not explain how the specific steps
recited in claim 2 are taught therein. As noted in our findings above, these
two portions of Salecker teach that the setting of the electric motor 112
determines the degree of engagement of the clutch (FF15) and that the
control unit 113 ascertains, calculates, and/or determines whether or not an
excessive slip exists and initiates and/or carries out undertakings to prevent
an excessive stressing and/or destruction of the torque transmitting system
(FF11). Appellants’ argument demonstrates error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellants argue that neither Salecker nor Maguire discloses that the
step of increasing the degree of clutch engagement over a period sufficient
to reduce the calculated temperature of the clutch includes the step of fully
engaging the clutch, as called for in claim 3. Appeal Br. 14. This argument
does not address the Examiner’s position, as stated on page 8 of the Answer,
that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the clutch
control art that clutch slip is eliminated when the clutch is fully engaged.
This argument also overlooks Maguire’s teaching that friction resulting from
clutch slip (relative slipping between discs) during the slipping portion of the
engagement cycle causes an increase in disc temperature and Maguire’s
teaching of cooling the discs by fluid flow when the discs are completely
engaged or disengaged. FF4. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from these teachings that Maguire contemplates fully engaging
the clutch at one end of the engagement cycle and fully disengaging the
clutch at the other end of the cycle. The person of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

15
would further appreciate that slip occurs on route to and from the fully
engaged and disengaged states, but not in the fully engaged and disengaged
states. Accordingly, Maguire fairly suggests fully engaging the clutch,
thereby eliminating the clutch slip, to reduce the temperature of the clutch.
Appellants’ argument fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 3.
We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 16-18) that the Examiner has
not pointed out where each and every one of the specific method steps
recited in claims 6-8 is taught or suggested by Salecker or Maguire. While
the Examiner points to portions of Maguire as purportedly satisfying the
limitations of claims 6, 7, and 8 (Answer 9), the Examiner has not
adequately explained, nor is it immediately apparent to us, where each of the
recited steps is taught in the portions of Maguire alluded to by the Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments thus demonstrate that the Examiner fails to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of these claims.
Claim 9 requires establishing a threshold clutch temperature that is
higher than the reference temperature and fully engaging the clutch if the
calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds the threshold clutch
temperature. Appellants argue that the Examiner has not pointed to any
teachings in the prior art reference to justify the conclusion that these steps
would have been obvious. Appeal Br. 18. We agree with Appellants.
While the Examiner addresses the limitation of fully engaging the clutch
once it is determined that the clutch temperature is higher than a reference or
limit value (Answer 9), the Examiner does not point to any teaching in either
Salecker or Maguire, or articulate any reason with rational underpinning as
to why it would have been obvious, to establish a threshold clutch
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

16
temperature that is higher than a reference temperature and to fully engage
the clutch upon a determination that the calculated clutch temperature
exceeds that higher threshold temperature. Appellants thus demonstrate that
the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the
subject matter of claim 9.
Appellants also argue that Maguire does not teach a transfer case, as
called for in claim 17. Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellants, “[a]
transfer case is a device located in a motor vehicle drive line between the
output of a geared power transmission and front and rear driveshafts for
transmitting power to the wheels.” FF7. While claim 17 does not require
any particular positioning of the transfer case relative to other components of
a vehicle, claim 17 does require a clutch control system “[i]n a transfer case
having first and second outputs,” thereby providing some context for the
term “transfer case.” As noted in our findings above, neither Maguire nor
Salecker explicitly teaches a transmission having first and second outputs.
FF3 and FF8. Nor does the Examiner provide any explanation as to how the
combination of Salecker and Maguire satisfies this limitation or why it
would have been obvious to provide such a transfer case in the combined
system. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument demonstrates error in the
rejection of claim 17, and claims 18 and 19 depending from claim 17.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Maguire teaches increasing the degree of clutch engagement
sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of the clutch, if the
calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds the reference clutch
temperature, as called for in independent claims 1 and 17. Maguire also
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

17
teaches comparing a calculated clutch temperature with a reference
temperature. Therefore, Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Maguire.
Maguire does not disclose a transfer case, as called for in claim 17.
Appellants thus demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17,
and claims 18 and 19 depending from claim 17, as being anticipated by
Maguire.
Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Maguire of
increasing the degree of clutch engagement sufficiently to reduce the
calculated temperature of the clutch, if the calculated clutch temperature
equals or exceeds the reference clutch temperature, with Salecker’s
automated clutch actuating apparatus. Appellants also fail to demonstrate
that neither Maguire nor Salecker teaches comparing a calculated clutch
temperature and a reference temperature and increasing the degree of clutch
engagement sufficiently to reduce the calculated temperature of the clutch, if
the calculated clutch temperature equals or exceeds the reference clutch
temperature, as called for in claims 1 and 17. However, neither Maguire nor
Salecker discloses a transfer case, as called for in claim 17. In light of the
above, Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 4, and 5 as being unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire.
Appellants do demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 17 as being
unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire.
Appellants fail to demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 3 as
being unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire.
Appeal 2008-2092
Application 10/774,805

18
Appellants demonstrate error in the rejection of claims 2 and 6-9 as
being unpatentable over Salecker and Maguire.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed as to claims 1 and 3-5 and
reversed as to claims 2, 6-9, and 17-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

vsh

MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604