Ex Parte Pryce et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

11838590 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/838,590 08/14/2007 Alex Pryce OIC0207D1US 6992
60975 7590 03/13/2014
CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP
11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE
BLDG. H, SUITE 250
AUSTIN, TX 78758
EXAMINER
HOSSEINI, REZA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEX PRYCE, JEFFREY BOYD, and
SCOTT KURINSKAS1
____________________

Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23. Appellants have previously canceled
claims 2 and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Oracle Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants’ “invention relates to data systems in general, and, in more
particular, a mechanism for substituting tables such that two separate
enterprise applications may access the same tables using a common database
instance.” Spec. 1:20-22 (“Field of the Invention”).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (some paragraphing and emphases added to
disputed limitations):
1. A method for sharing data across a legacy
application system and a core application system, comprising:
identifying a table in the legacy application system
containing data similar to data contained in a set of related core
application system tables, said legacy application table
comprising a substituted table, wherein the set of related core
application system tables comprise a base table and at least one
child table;
determining a table structure of each of the substituted
table and the set of related core application system tables;
defining business logic to remap columns in the set of
related core application system tables to corresponding
columns in the substituted table based on the table structure of
each table; and

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 8, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 8, 2011); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 8, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Mar. 4, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Aug. 14, 2007).
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

3
performing core application system data operations via
the business logic that access the remapped columns in the
substituted table instead of the columns in the core application
system table,
wherein the legacy application system is configured to
concurrently access the substituted table without requiring any
changes to business logic that is used by the legacy application
system, and
wherein performing the core application system data
operations comprises entering data corresponding to a new
record, and in response thereto writing data pertaining to the
new record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the
same data to said at least one child table.

4. The method of claim 3, further comprising:
generating a primary key for the substituted table using a
primary key generation scheme corresponding to the legacy
application system; and
generating a primary key for said at least one child table
using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the
core application system.

7. A method for sharing data across a legacy
application system and a core application system, comprising:
identifying a set of related tables in the legacy application
system containing data similar to data contained in a set of
related core application system tables, said legacy application
table comprising a set of substituted tables, wherein the set of
substituted tables comprise a base table and at least one child
table;
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

4
determining a table structure of each of the set of
substituted tables and the set of related core application system
tables;
defining business logic to remap columns in the set of
related core application system tables to corresponding
columns in the set of substituted tables based on the table
structure of each table; and
performing core application system data operations via
the business logic that access the remapped columns in the set
of substituted tables instead of the columns in the set of related
core application system tables,
wherein the legacy application system is enabled
to concurrently access the set of substituted tables
without requiring any changes to business logic that is
used by the legacy application system, and
wherein performing the core application system
data operations comprises entering data corresponding to
a new record, and in response thereto:
writing a first portion of data pertaining to
the new record to the base table;
writing a second portion of data pertaining
to the new record to said at least one child table.

10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
remapping columns in a core application system table to
corresponding columns in said legacy application system table;
and
performing core application system data operations that
access the columns in the substituted table in place of the
columns in the core application system table that are remapped.
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

5
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Bergen US 5,564,113 Oct. 8, 1996
Burroughs US 5,956,725 Sep. 21, 1999
Kabra US 2003/0014396 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Rejections on Appeal3
R1. Claims 1, 3-6, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Burroughs. Ans. 4.
R2. Claims 7, 9-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and
Bergen. Ans. 9.
R3. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs, Bergen, and Kabra.
Ans. 17.
R4. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Burroughs and Kabra. Ans. 18.
CLAIM GROUPINGS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-19), we select the
following claims as being representative of the indicated claim groups. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

3 Appellants only appeal rejections R1 and R2, indicated above. App. Br. 8.
Appellants do not present any arguments against rejections R3 and R4.
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

6
G1. Claim 1 is representative of claims 3, 5, 6, 20, and 23, which
stand or fall with independent claim 1. Appellants did not separately argue
claims 17, 21, and 22 with particularity, so they likewise fall with claim 1.
G2. Claim 4 stands or falls alone.
G3. Claim 7 is representative of claims 9, 11-15, 18, and 19, which
stand or fall with independent claim 7.
G4. Claim 10 is representative of claim 16, which stands or falls
with dependent claim 10.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellants in
reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments that Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that any such
arguments are deemed to be waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claims 1, 3-
7, and 9-23, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 for
emphasis as follows.
1. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 20, and 23
Appellants argue (App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 9-15) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

7
Burroughs is in error. These contentions present us with the following
issues:
Issue 1
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses the
following limitations in claim 1?
(a) “entering data corresponding to a new record, and in response
thereto writing data pertaining to the new record to the substituted table and
writing a portion of the same data to said at least one child table”; and
(b) “defining business logic to remap columns in the set of related
core application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted
table based on the table structure of each table.”
Analysis
Issue 1(a)
Appellants contend the portions of Burroughs cited by the Examiner
(FOA 5-6 (citing Burroughs col. 10, ll. 29-51; col. 13, ll. 1-34 (e.g.,
sidetable))) only disclose storing a new employee entity on the relational
side of Burroughs’s system, and does not disclose also storing a portion of
the entity data in a table on the object-oriented application program side of
the system. App. Br. 10. As a consequence, Appellants contend Burroughs
fails to disclose the limitation in claim 1 of “entering data corresponding to a
new record to both a table of a legacy application system and to a table of a
core application system.” Id. Appellants further assert Burroughs discloses
relational data store 36 as the only location to store data, and “Burroughs has
explicitly stated it is only interested in dealing with the problems of
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

8
interfacing an object-oriented application program with a relational database,
with the complete absence of object-oriented storage.” App. Br. 11 (citing
Burroughs col. 3, ll. 22-26; col. 5, ll. 37-41).
In response, the Examiner notes Appellants’ argument that
“Burroughs fail[s] to teach entering data corresponding to a new record to
both a table of a legacy application system and to a table of a core
application system” (App. Br. 10) does not precisely match with the disputed
language of claim 1, which recites, “entering data corresponding to a new
record, and in response thereto writing data pertaining to the new record to
the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said at least
one child table.” The Examiner further observes Burroughs discloses
parent/child tables of the system in Figures 8B and 9B and also discloses,
“[s]chema map tool 24 may request that the user enter the table definition
through [a] Graphical User interface (GUI), including the table name and
column names.” See Ans. 20-21 (quoting Burroughs col. 10, ll. 29-51).
We find Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of the claim, and we therefore agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 20-
23) that Burroughs discloses the “entering data” limitation in dispute. In
addition, and in further support of the Examiner’s findings regarding the
anticipation of claim 1 by Burroughs, we further note Burroughs generally
discloses, inter alia, “the present invention relates to a method . . . for
mapping between the schema of an object-oriented application program and
the schema of legacy or preexisting relational database tables in which the
mapping includes a relationship between a handle of an object and a . . . key
of a table.” Burroughs col. 1, ll. 17-22.
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

9
In the Reply, Appellants contend:
While Burroughs may purportedly write to the parent, child, or
side table (the purported substitute legacy table), these tables
are clearly shown in Figures 8B and 9B as tables of the
relational side of Burroughs’ system (whereas Figures 8A and
9A illustrate the object-oriented schema side of Burroughs’
system). Burrough’s purported writing to a child table of the
relational side of Burroughs system fails to disclose the claimed
act of writing data pertaining to a new record to a child table of
a core application system.
Reply Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Again, we find Appellants’ arguments
pertaining to “object-oriented schema side” and “relational side” are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellants appear to be arguing
we should read limitations from the Specification into claim 1, which we
note only requires, in pertinent part, “writing data pertaining to the new
record to the substituted table and writing a portion of the same data to said
at least one child table.” While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably
in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations
from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Appellants also argue in the Reply, “the cited sections of Burroughs
teach away from using such object-oriented databases in Burroughs’ system,
and instead only disclose a system with a relational database.” Reply Br. 13.
We disagree, as our reviewing court held in Celeritas, “[a] reference is no
less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then
disparages it. . . . [T]he question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from
the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.” Celeritas Techs.,
Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

10
We therefore agree with the Examiner’s findings that Burroughs
anticipates claim 1.
Issue 1(b)
Appellants contend, “Burroughs fail[s] to disclose storage tables on
the object-oriented application program side . . . [and] also fail[s] to teach
the claimed act of defining business logic to remap columns in the set of
related core application system tables to corresponding columns in the
substituted table.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further contend, “mapping a
handle to a column of a database is not equivalent to mapping the columns
of a set of core application system tables to a substituted (legacy) table . . .
[so that] data pertaining to a new record can be written to at least one child
table.” Id. Appellants argue the portions of Burroughs cited by the
Examiner “fail to disclose to disclose any storage tables on the object-
oriented program side of Burroughs’ system to which data can be written.”
Id.
In response, the Examiner finds (Ans. 5, 23), and we agree, Burroughs
teaches the limitation in dispute in Figures 8A and 8B and the related
disclosure. For example, Figure 8A maps columns in the set of related core
application system tables such as entity 136 and address entity 144 of Figure
8A to corresponding columns in substituted table (152 of Figure 8B) based
on the table structure of each table. See Burroughs col. 13, ll. 1-34; Fig. 4
(sidetable 92); Figs. 8A, 8B; col. 17, l. 59 to col. 18, l. 22. That is, Figures
8A and 8B diagram an object and database table illustrating a method in
which fields of an embedded key object are mapped to columns of sidetable
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

11
92 joined to the table via a foreign key relationship. Burroughs col. 5, ll.
17-20.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments cited above and find
the recitation of “business logic to remap columns in the set of related core
application system tables to corresponding columns in the substituted table
based on the table structure of each table” reads on the disclosure of
Burroughs cited above.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. As Appellants
have not provided separate arguments with respect to the other claims of
group G1, which stand or fall with independent claim 1, we similarly sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 17
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the unpatentability rejection of claim 17 under § 103 over the combination
of Burroughs, Bergen, and Kabra, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of these claims as it falls with independent claim 1. Arguments not
made are considered waived. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection
to the Board, section 1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(1)(vii))] imposes no
burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection . . . .
[T]he Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection
as waived.”).
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

12
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 21 and 22
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the unpatentability rejection of claims 21 and 22 under § 103, we sustain
the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of these claims, as they fall with
their respective independent claim 20. Arguments not made are considered
waived. See Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314.
2. Anticipation Rejection of Claim 4
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13-14) the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Burroughs is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses the
limitations of “generating a primary key for the substituted table using a
primary key generation scheme corresponding to the legacy application
system” and “generating a primary key for said at least one child table using
a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the core application
system,” as recited in claim 4?
Analysis
Appellants contend, “the cited sections of Burroughs fail to teach any
sort of primary key generation scheme corresponding to either the legacy
application system or core application system, as claimed.” App. Br. 13.
Appellants further contend the cited sections of Burroughs show the
sidetable defines a column, such as “Street” as a primary key, but fails to
disclose “the primary key is generated using a primary key generation
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

13
scheme corresponding to the relational database (the purported legacy
application system).” Id. (citing Burroughs col. 17, ll. 66-67).
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Burroughs teaches
defining a primary key for the sidetable and core application system on
‘street of sidetable’ and ‘AddrCode.’” Ans. 24 (citing Burroughs col 17, ll.
66-67; Fig. 8B (sidetable 152)). In support of the Examiner’s findings, we
further note Burroughs discloses:
A sidetable 152 has a column “Street” defined as a primary key
and has a column “AddrCode” defined as a foreign key into the
“AddrCode” column of table 146, which is in turn defined as a
foreign key into the “AddrCode” column of table 148.
Sidetable 152 may be added and maintained by providing a
suitable API, as described above with respect to FIG. 4.
Burroughs col. 17, l. 66 to col. 18, l. 17. Appellants’ arguments that “the
cited sections of Burroughs fail to disclose that the primary key is generated
using a primary key generation scheme corresponding to the relational
database (the purported legacy application system)” (App. Br. 13) and “the
cited sections fail to disclose generating a key using a primary key
generation scheme corresponding to the object-oriented application system
(the purported core application system)” (App. Br. 14) are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 4. As quoted above, claim 4 makes
no mention of “relational database” or “object-oriented application system,”
and as such Appellants are arguing limitations not present in claim 4.
The Examiner presents specific findings to rebut Appellants’
arguments (Ans. 25), which we adopt as our own and incorporate herein by
reference. We further note the limitations in dispute in claim 4 merely
appear to recite an intended use, being of the form “generating a primary key
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

14
for . . . .” Even assuming we were to give weight to the intended use recited
in claim 4, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner as cited above.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 4.
3. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 7, 9, 11-15, 18, and 19
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 17-20) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Burroughs and Bergen is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests the limitations relating to entering data corresponding to
a new record to a base table and child table of a set of legacy application
system tables, and defining business logic to remap columns in the set of
related core application system tables to corresponding columns in a set of
substituted tables, as required by claim 7?
Analysis
Appellants contend the “combination of references still fails to
disclose the claimed act of entering data corresponding to a new record to a
base table and at least one child table.” App. Br. 16. Appellants further
contend, “[i]t is unclear how Bergen’s tables, which contain information
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

15
very different from Burroughs’ legacy tables, could be combined with
Burroughs’ sidetable in a way that would purportedly teach the claimed set
of substituted tables.” Id. In addition, Appellants contend, “the cited
sections of Burroughs fail to teach the claimed act of defining business logic
to remap columns in the set of related core application system tables to
corresponding columns in the set of substituted tables” and “Bergen is not
cognizant of any reason why columns of Bergen’s tables should be mapped
to columns of any other table.” App. Br. 17.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, similar to claim 1,
Burroughs teaches business logic used to map columns in the related core
application system tables to corresponding columns in a set of substituted
tables. Ans. 27 (citing Burroughs Fig. 8A (reference nos. 136 & 144); Fig.
8B (sidetable 152); col. 17, l. 59 to col. 18, l. 22; col. 13, ll. 1-34).
The Examiner states both Burroughs and Bergen teach or suggest the
limitation in claim 7 of “entering data corresponding to a new record, and in
response thereto: writing a first portion of data pertaining to the new record
to the base table; writing a second portion of data pertaining to the new
record to said at least one child table.” Ans. 27-28. The Examiner
specifically cites to Bergen at column 6, lines 7-33, column 7, lines 50-62,
column 8, lines 38-47, and Figures 1, 3, and 4 as teaching or suggesting this
disputed limitation. Ans. 28. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation
of Bergen’s teachings and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Id.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

16
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 7. As Appellants
have not provided separate arguments with respect to the remaining claims
of group G3, which stand or fall with independent claim 7, we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 10 and 16
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 20-21) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Burroughs and Bergen is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests the limitation of “remapping columns in a core
application system table to corresponding columns in said legacy application
system table,” as recited in claim 10?
Analysis
Appellants contend the cited portions of Bergen only teach
referencing tables using a key value and fail to disclose accessing columns
of tables in place of columns of any other table. App. Br. 18 (citing Bergen
col. 7, ll. 50-62). Appellants further contend Burroughs fails to disclose any
storage tables on the object-oriented application program side of
Burroughs’s system, and therefore Bergen’s tables cannot be relied upon to
teach the missing storage table on the object-oriented application program
side of Burroughs’s system because such tables do not exist in Burroughs.
Id.
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

17
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the “only part of [the] claim
language of claim 10 which is taught by Bergen is ‘performing core
application system data operations that access the columns in the substituted
table in place of the columns in the core application system table that are
remapped’, [and] Bergen teaches this limitation.” Ans. 33 (citing Bergen
col. 7, ll. 50-62). The Examiner further finds Bergen’s “tables provide a
mapping matrix between database objects of a plurality of RDBMSs,” thus
meeting the claim limitation in dispute. Id. (citing Bergen Fig. 3 (translation
table 30); Fig. 4 (implication table 31); Fig. 5 (composition table 32), which
are stored in computer memory and accessed via computer).
With respect to Burroughs’s teachings relevant to claim 10, the
Examiner finds (Ans. 33), and we agree, Appellants’ argument that “the
cited sections of Burroughs fail to disclose any storage tables on the object-
oriented application program side of Burroughs’ system” (App. Br. 18) is
not persuasive. We find the argument is unpersuasive because Appellants’
arguments are not directed to the actual claim limitation and therefore not
commensurate with the scope of claim 10, which does not distinguish
between an object-oriented application program side and any other side, e.g.,
a “relational side.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Burroughs and Bergen teach or suggest the disputed limitation of
claim 10.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art or in the Examiner’s legal
Appeal 2011-007850
Application 11/838,590

18
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 10. As Appellants have not
provided separate arguments with respect to remaining claim 16 of group
G4, which stands or fall with dependent claim 10, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Burroughs, and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various
unpatentability rejections of claims 7, 9-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the
rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) .
AFFIRMED

bab