Ex Parte Sako

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2010

10220677 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2010)

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.
10/220,677 11/22/2002 Yoichiro Sako SONYJP 3.3-869 1700
530 7590 08/24/2010
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG,
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST
WESTFIELD, NJ 07090
EXAMINER
SALIARD, SHANNON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2010 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte YOICHIRO SAKO 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-005578 11
Application 10/220,677 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and 16
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL119

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
20
21
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Yoichiro Sako (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of 2
a final rejection of claims 32-33, 35-40, and 42-45, the only claims pending 3
in the application on appeal. 4
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) 5
(2002). 6
SUMMARY OF DECISION2 7
We AFFIRM. 8
THE INVENTION 9
The Appellant invented a recording medium which records a program 10
capable of money charge processing when reproducing a program such as 11
game software or the like, and a data processing apparatus and a method 12
thereof which can perform the money charge processing when the program 13
is reproduced. Specification 1. 14
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 15
exemplary claims 32, 37, and 38, which are reproduced below [bracketed 16
matter and some paragraphing added]. 17

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 25, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 11,
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 9, 2008), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed October 17, 2007).
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

3
32. A method of processing fee-charges for a game program 1
downloaded through a network and executed on a game 2
machine in a home or an arcade; comprising the steps of: 3
[1] determining a fee-charge mode by extracting fee-charge 4
method identification data from a header data part of said game 5
program; 6
[2] wherein said fee-charge mode is based on a type of said 7
game program; 8
[3] processing a fee-charge based on the determined fee-9
charge mode; and 10
[4] executing the downloaded game program on said game 11
machine if said fee-charge is successfully processed; 12
[5] wherein the header data part includes a fee-charge 13
amount, a genre of the game program, and control data for 14
saving a user's progress in the game program. 15
16
37. The method according to claim 32, wherein the fee-charge 17
mode is a time-dependent fee-charge if said game program is a 18
long-time play type. 19
20
38. The method according to claim 32, wherein the fee-charge 21
mode is a spot fee-charge if said game program is a short-time 22
play type. 23
24
THE REJECTIONS 25
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 26
Tagawa et al. WO 00/21087 Apr. 13, 2000
Lang US 2002/0046041 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Bible, JR. et al. US 2002/0069180 A1 Jun. 6, 2002
Orus et al. US 5,706,925 Jan. 13, 1998
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

4
Nordin et al. US 6,128,607 Oct. 3, 2000
Mochizuki US 6,463,539 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Yamanaka et al. US 7,076,563 B1 Jul. 11, 2006
1
Claims 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 stand rejected under 35 2
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible, JR., Yamanaka, and 3
Nordin. 4
Claims 33 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 5
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Orus. 6
Claims 37 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 7
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Mochizuki. 8
Claims 38 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Lang. 10
11
ISSUES 12
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32, 35, 36, 13
39, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible 14
JR., Yamanaka, and Nordin turns on whether the cited prior art describes 15
executing a game program that has already been downloaded to a game 16
machine, if a fee-charge is successfully processed, where the fee-charge is 17
processed based on a type of the downloaded game program and using a 18
header data part of the downloaded game program and whether there is a 19
motivation to combine the prior art. 20
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

5
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 33 and 40 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., 2
Yamanaka, Nordin, and Orus turns on whether the arguments in support of 3
claims 32 and 39 supra are found persuasive. 4
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37 and 44 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., 6
Yamanaka, Nordin, and Mochizuki turns on whether Mochizuki describes a 7
fee-charge based on time. 8
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 38 and 45 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., 10
Yamanaka, Nordin, and Lang turns on whether Lang describes the fee-11
charge mode as a spot fee-charge if the game program is a short-time play 12
type. 13
14
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 15
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 16
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 17
Facts Related to the Prior Art 18
Tagawa 19
01. Tagawa is directed to a device and method for recording, 20
reproducing, and processing data. Tagawa Title. 21
02. Tagawa describes a recording medium that stores a first 22
content, a second content, and a header attached to the second 23
content. Tagawa 6:25-27 and 7:1-7. The second content and 24
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

6
header are encrypted using the first and second encryption keys 1
respectively. Tagawa 7:1-7. The header contains the first key 2
used to encrypt the second content and the second key used to 3
encrypt the header is provided to a predetermined device in 4
advance. Tagawa 7:1-7. The second content is decrypted by 5
loading the recording medium into the predetermined device to 6
obtain the second encryption key. Tagawa 7:13-16. The header 7
can also include information related to whether the reproduction 8
of the second content is permitted, whether there is a period 9
during which reproduction is permitted, whether recording of the 10
second content onto another medium is permitted, and whether 11
there is a period during which recording is permitted. Tagawa 12
9:17-24. The header also contains information of a fee to be 13
charged when reproduction or recording of the second content is 14
permitted. Tagawa 9:24-26. The fees charged can include a 15
purchase fee that is charged upon purchase of the content and a 16
playback fee that is charged on an as-used basis according to the 17
number of times the consumer has reproduced the content. 18
Tagawa 26:13-20. 19
Bible JR. 20
03. Bible JR. is directed to a system and method for altering a file 21
before it is to be sold by a seller, and then revealing the file for 22
subsequent use by a buyer. Bible JR. ¶ 0001. 23
04. A file, created by a seller, consists of an overhead part, a 24
content part and can further include a header. Bible JR. ¶ 0008. 25
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

7
The overhead of a file includes information about the file 1
including the pricing and payment terms. Bible JR. ¶ 0008. The 2
overhead further includes the filename, the seller’s account 3
identification, and the buyer’s account identification. Bible JR. ¶ 4
0008. The content part of the file consists of books, documents, 5
pamphlets, movies, songs, games, pictures, software, or 6
passwords. Bible JR. ¶ 0009. The header part of a file includes 7
advertising, information regarding the content of the file, samples 8
of the content, and suggested prices. Bible JR. ¶ 0010. After the 9
file has been created by the seller, a public key is used to encrypt 10
the overhead with a public encryption key provided by a 11
transaction agency and further encrypt the file with a private 12
encryption key. Bible JR. ¶ 0022. Once a buyer indicates to the 13
transaction agency an indication to purchase the content, the 14
transaction agency uses the public encryption key to decrypt the 15
overhead and present to the buyer the pricing and payment terms 16
for the content. Bible JR. ¶ 0024. The buyer then approves or 17
cancels the transaction. Bible JR. ¶ 0024. If approved, 18
transaction agency debits the buyer’s account and credits the 19
seller’s account. Bible JR. ¶ 0024. Finally, the private key is 20
transferred to the buyer to allow the buyer to decrypt the 21
remainder of the file. Bible JR. ¶ 0025. 22
Yamanaka 23
05. Yamanaka is directed to digital content downloading system in 24
which digital content such as music files, video files, game 25
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

8
software titles and so on are downloaded to a plurality of 1
consumers through networks. Yamanaka 1:7-10. 2
06. Yamanaka describes that a fixed charge for downloading digital 3
content is not proper, but a policy of determining a charge 4
depending on the type of the digital content or a downloading 5
quality of the digital content is desired. Yamanaka 1:55-61. Also 6
considered are charging fees based in proportion to a bandwidth 7
used for the download or the time of downloading. Yamanaka 8
1:64-67 and 2:1-5. 9
Nordin 10
07. Nordin is directed to a system for creating, initializing, storing, 11
altering, and executing both the run-time data and the computer 12
code necessary to execute repeated computations. Nordin 1:10-13
14. 14
08. Nordin describes a file header that is used to save values in 15
registers that exist when a function is called and then saves the 16
address of the calling instruction so that the program can begin 17
where it left off. Nordin 12:19-26. 18
Orus 19
09. Orus is directed to game machines with a payment mechanism 20
that make it possible to use different systems of payment that are 21
both more secure and more practical than those in current use. 22
Orus 1:11-15. 23
24
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

9
Mochizuki 1
10. Mochizuki is directed to a managing system for reproducing 2
information, as well as, a reproduction method and apparatus for 3
preventing information from illegal duplication or copying and to 4
improve utilization technology of information contained in a 5
medium. Mochizuki 1:11-16. 6
11. The managing system is for charging a reproduction fee based 7
on a utilized degree of information. Mochizuki 2:60-64. 8
Utilization information can be defined as (1) a time duration of 9
reproducing software information by a user that can be based on 10
reproduction time such as one hour and/or (2) reproduction of 11
chapters or sections of information. Mochizuki 7:49-65. 12
Lang 13
12. Lang is directed to an automated service for providing 14
reputation and trust information. Lang ¶ 0002. 15
13. Lang describes that a requesting party can be charged for 16
reputation and trust information in several different ways. Lang ¶ 17
0044. A requesting party can be charged a one-time fee for a 18
single request or on a transaction basis for each request. Lang ¶ 19
0044. Alternatively, a requesting party can be charged a flat rate 20
fee for periods of time such years, months, weeks, days, hours, or 21
minutes. Lang ¶ 0045. 22
23
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

10
ANALYSIS 1
Claims 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, and Nordin 3
The Appellant first contends that (1) Tagawa, Bible JR, Yamanaka, and 4
Nordin fail to describe executing a game program that has already been 5
downloaded to a game machine if a fee-charge is successfully processed, 6
where the fee-charge is processed based on a type of the downloaded game 7
program and using a header data part of the downloaded game program, as 8
required by limitation [4] of claim 32. App. Br. 9-10 and 14-18 and Reply 9
Br. 1-7. The Appellant specifically argues that the claimed invention is 10
concerned with executing a game program whereas Tagawa describes 11
reproducing, copying, playing, and/or recording digital content such as 12
music and video. App. Br. 10. The Appellant additionally argues that the 13
cited references fail to describe conditioning the execution of the 14
downloaded game program upon successful processing of a fee-charge. 15
Reply Br. 2-7. 16
We disagree with the Appellant. Tagawa describes a recording medium 17
that stores a first content, a second content, and a header, where the 18
consumer has already purchased the first content and desires the second 19
content. FF 02. The header portion includes information regarding the 20
content and an encryption key for decrypting the second content. FF 02. 21
The header further includes fee information. FF 02. Prior to loading the 22
second content and header onto the recording medium, the recording 23
medium stores an encryption key that is used to decrypt the header 24
information. FF 02. Upon loading the content on to the recording medium 25
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

11
and then the device, the header is decrypted and the second content is 1
decrypted subsequent to the header. FF 02. That is, the fee information is 2
only available to the consumer after the content and header have been loaded 3
and decrypted on the recording medium. As such, Tagawa describes 4
charging a fee for the execution of digital content that has already been 5
downloaded. 6
Bible JR. further describes a digital rights management system for digital 7
content that includes games. FF 04. Bible JR. also stores content 8
information and pricing information in an overhead portion of a file. FF 04. 9
The overhead portion is separate from the executable portion of the content 10
and therefore is the same as the header portion of the claimed invention. 11
Bible JR. also describes conditioning the decryption and use of the file until 12
the payment terms have been approved, the buyer’s account has been 13
debited, and the seller’s account has been credited. FF 04. As such, Bible 14
JR. describes conditioning the execution of the downloaded game program 15
upon successful processing of a fee-charge. 16
Additionally, Yamanaka describes determining a fee for the content 17
based on the type of content and Nordin describes saving the values of the 18
executable code such that the execution can resume where it left off. FF 06, 19
08. As such, the combination of the cited references describes all of the 20
limitations of claim 32. The Appellant’s contentions that Tagawa, Bible JR., 21
Yamanaka, and Nordin fail to describe various limitations of claim 32 are 22
not found persuasive because the Appellant is responding to the rejection by 23
attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the 24
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be 25
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is 26
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

12
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & 1
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Appellant responds that 2
the Appellant is not attacking the references separately, but arguing that a 3
feature is missing from the prior art. Reply Br. 2-7. However, the 4
Appellant’s arguments are comprised of alleging references to be deficient 5
for features that the Examiner has not relied on those references to describe. 6
For example, the Examiner has relied on Bible JR. to describe the 7
conditional execution of the game upon receipt of fees, as discussed supra, 8
yet the Appellant alleges Tagawa fails to describe this feature. These 9
arguments are not found persuasive because they are attacks on the 10
references separately from the rejection as a whole. 11
The Appellant also contends that (2) there is no apparent reason to 12
combine Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Tagawa, the relied upon 13
references are non-analogous, and the Examiner used impermissible 14
hindsight in constructing the rejection. App. Br. 10, 13-19. We disagree 15
with the Appellant. Tagawa is concerned with the distribution of digital 16
content in a secure manner such that payment is received for the content. FF 17
02. Tagawa accomplishes this by encrypting content and conditioning the 18
use of the content based on restrictions and fees contained in the header. FF 19
02. Bible JR. and Yamanaka are also concerned with the distribution of 20
digital content in a secure manner such that payment is received for the 21
content. FF 03-05. Bible JR. accomplishes this by encrypting the content 22
and providing an overhead portion that provides payment terms and limited 23
access to the content. FF 04. Yamanaka accomplishes this by providing 24
multiple payment options based on the type of content and the quality or 25
time of downloading the content. FF 06. Nordin concerned about managing 26
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

13
the execution of a file or content code. FF 07. Nordin accomplishes this by 1
managing the values in compiler registers in order to be able to resume 2
processing to the last processed values. FF 08. As such, Tagawa, Bible JR. 3
Yamanaka, and Nordin are all concerned with digital content management 4
and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been lead to combine 5
their teachings at the time of the claimed invention in order to include 6
specific types of digital content, varied pricing options, and the ability to 7
save the progress of content. Since all of the references are concerned with 8
similar problems, they are analogous art. 9
The Appellant further contends that (3) the Examiner has inappropriately 10
applied In re Jacoby and In re Bode. App. Br. 11. The Appellant 11
specifically argues that since Tagawa fails to have an attribute of being 12
executable, Jacoby cannot be applied because there is no corresponding 13
structure for the attribute. App. Br. 11. The Appellant also argues that Bode 14
is inapplicable because the knowledge of a person skilled in the art is not 15
needed to complement a disclosure directed to music digital content. App. 16
Br. 12. We disagree with the Appellant. As discussed supra, Tagawa, Bible 17
JR., Yamanaka, and Nordin describe the limitations of claim 32. As such, 18
the only reliance on Jacoby and Bode is to merely show the basic level of a 19
person with ordinary skill in the art. Since the Examiner has not relied on 20
Jacoby and Bode in the rejection of the claims, the Appellant’s argument 21
that the application of this case law is inappropriate is not persuasive in 22
finding these claims patentably distinct over the prior art. 23
24
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

14
Claims 33 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 1
over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Orus 2
The Appellant contends that Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, and Nordin 3
fail to describe features of claims 32 and 39, as argued supra, and dependant 4
claims 33 and 40 incorporate these features by reference. App. Br. 20. 5
Therefore the cited references fail to describe claims 33 and 40. App. Br. 6
20. We disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments were not 7
found persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons. 8
9
Claims 37 and 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 10
over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Mochizuki 11
The Appellant first contends that Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, and 12
Nordin fail to describe features of claims 32 and 39, as argued supra, and 13
dependant claims 37 and 43 incorporate these features by reference. App. 14
Br. 20. Therefore the cited references fail to describe claims 37 and 43. 15
App. Br. 20-21. We disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s 16
arguments were not found persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for 17
the same reasons. 18
The Appellant further contends that Mochizuki describes a fee-charge 19
that is based on the amount of content reproduced, whereas the claimed 20
invention has a fee-charge based on time, as per claims 37 and 44. App. Br. 21
21-22. We disagree with the Appellant. Mochizuki describes a system for 22
charging a fee for an amount of utilized content. FF 10-11. Mochizuki 23
further describes that utilization can be based on a reproduction time, such as 24
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

15
one hour, or a reproduction amount, such as a chapter or section. FF 11. As 1
such, Mochizuki explicitly describes a time-dependant utilization fee. 2
3
Claims 38 and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 4
over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Lang 5
The Appellant first contends that Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, and 6
Nordin fail to describe features of claims 32 and 39, as argued supra, and 7
dependant claims 38 and 45 incorporate these features by reference. App. 8
Br. 22. Therefore the cited references fail to describe claims 38 and 45. 9
App. Br. 22. We disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments 10
were not found persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same 11
reasons. 12
The Appellant also contends that Lang is non-analogous art. App. Br. 13
23. We disagree with the Appellant. As discussed supra, Tagawa, Bible 14
JR., Yamanaka, and Nordin are concerned with payment terms and fees 15
charged. Lang is also concerned with appropriately charging a consumer 16
fees for services provided. FF 13. Lang solves this problem by providing 17
two methods to charge fees based on each transaction or for a specified 18
period of time. FF 13. Since Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and 19
Lang are concerned with solving the same problem, they are analogous arts. 20
As such, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been lead to 21
combine their teachings at the time of the claimed invention in order to 22
provide additional schemes to charge for services. 23
The Appellant further contends that Lang fails to describe the fee-charge 24
mode is a spot fee-charge if the game program is a short-time play type, as 25
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

16
per claims 38 and 45. App. Br. 22-23. We disagree with the Appellant. A 1
spot fee charge, as described by the specification, is a fee charged for every 2
time the content of the data is executed. Specification 9. Lang describes a 3
system where a fee for services rendered can be applied on a transactional 4
basis or a fixed fee for a period of time, such as months or years. FF 13. A 5
charge for each transaction is a one time charge for each request and 6
therefore is the same as a spot fee-charge. Furthermore, Tagawa describes a 7
fee that is charged on an as-used basis according to the number of times the 8
consumer has reproduced the content, which is also the same as a spot fee. 9
FF 02. As such, Lang and Tagawa describe this limitation of claims 38 and 10
45. 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., 14
Yamanaka, and Nordin. 15
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 16
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and 17
Orus. 18
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 37 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. 19
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and 20
Mochizuki. 21
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 38 and 45 rejected under 35 22
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, 23
and Lang. 24
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

17
DECISION 1
To summarize, our decision is as follows. 2
• The rejection of claims 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 under 35 3
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, 4
and Nordin is sustained. 5
• The rejection of claims 33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 6
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Orus is 7
sustained. 8
• The rejection of claims 37 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and 10
Mochizuki is sustained. 11
• The rejection of claims 38 and 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 12
unpatentable over Tagawa, Bible JR., Yamanaka, Nordin, and Lang is 13
sustained. 14
15
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 16
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 17
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 18
19
AFFIRMED 20
21
22
23
mev 24
25
Appeal 2009-005578
Application 10/220,677

18
Address 1
LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, 2
KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK 3
600 SOUTH AVENUE WEST 4
WESTFIELD NJ 07090 5