Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2014

11313102 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/313,102 12/20/2005 Yiyong Sun 2005P00855 US01 2287
28524 7590 05/21/2014
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
HUNG, YUBIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2014 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 YIYONG SUN, HERVE LOMBAERT,
LEO GRADY, and CHENYANG XU1
____________________

Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, 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 1-25, 27, and 28.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
2 See infra note 4.
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a multilevel image segmentation
technique using graph cuts. Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 3, 10, 21, and 25, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method for processing a full resolution CT scan
image comprising:
a) generating at a computer a reduced resolution image
from said full resolution CT scan image;
b) segmenting at said computer said reduced resolution
image to identify a boundary between an object and a
background;
c) generating at said computer an increased resolution
boundary image, said increased resolution boundary image
corresponding to only a portion of an area of said full
resolution CT scan image, based on said prior identified
boundary; and
d) segmenting at said computer said increased resolution
boundary image to generate a refined boundary.

3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Oct. 1, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 24, 2011); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 24, 2011); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Apr. 6, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 20, 2005).
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

3
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps
of:
receiving an identification of at least a portion of said
object as user input; and
automatically determining at least a portion of said
background.
10. The method of claim 9 further comprising the steps
of:
identifying an outer portion of said dilated projected
prior identified boundary as background; and
identifying an inner portion of said dilated projected
prior identified boundary as object.
21. A method for segmenting a CT scan image (I0)
based on object seeds O and background seeds G comprising
the steps of:
a) generating at a computer a plurality (K) of reduced
resolution images (I1..... IK);
b) generating at said computer a graph GK for the lowest
resolution image IK;
c) calculating at said computer a minimum cut CK of said
graph GK based on O and G;
d) generating at said computer a binary boundary image
J k to represent the image points identified by nodes in said
minimum cut CK;
e) projecting at said computer said image points onto a
higher resolution boundary image J k-1;
f) generating at said computer a graph G k-1 for said
higher resolution boundary image J k-1; and
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

4
g) calculating at said computer a minimum cut CK-1 for
said graph G K-1.
25. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of
projecting said image points onto a higher resolution boundary
image J K-1 is performed according to: J K-1(p) = J K (α(p)).
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Fan US 2003/0072487 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Lestideau US 2004/0109584 A1 June 10, 2004
Bitter US 2005/0228250 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art, paragraphs 3-5 of the
instant Specification (hereinafter, “AAPA”).
Rejections on Appeal4
R1. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 15-18, 21, 22, 25, 27, and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Fan, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) (paragraphs
3-5 of the Specification), and Lestideau. Ans. 11.
R2. Claims 4, 9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fan,

4 In the Final Office Action (FOA, “Office Action Summary”), dependent
claim 26 is indicated as being rejected, but no detailed rejection is provided.
However, in response to Appellants’ pointing out this fact (App. Br. 19), the
Examiner indicates claim 26 is drawn to allowable subject matter. Ans. 27
(with reference to a prior Final Office Action mailed May 11, 2009).
Accordingly, claim 26 is not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

5
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”) (paragraphs 3-5 of the
Specification), Lestideau, and Bitter. Ans. 17.
CLAIM GROUPINGS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5-19) and our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we decide this appeal on the basis of the
following claim groupings:
§ 103(a) Rejection R1 Over Fan, AAPA, and Lestideau
A. Claim 1: Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, 27, and 28 stand or
fall with independent claim 1.
B. Claim 21: Claims 21 and 22 stand or fall with independent
claim 21.
C. Claim 3: Dependent claims 3 and 13 stand or fall together.
D. Claim 25: Dependent claim 25 stands alone.
§ 103(a) Rejection R2 Over Fan, AAPA, Lestideau, and Bitter
E. Claim 10: Dependent claims 10 and 20 stand or fall with
claim 10.
F. Dependent claims 4, 9, 14, 19, 23, and 24 each stand or fall
with the claim from which they depend.
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

6
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellants in
reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments which 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 agree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 25.
However, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-
24, 27, and 28, 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. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 21, and 25 for
emphasis as follows.
1. Rejection R1 of Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, 27, and 28
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 2-5) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the cited prior art combination 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 “c) generating at said computer an
increased resolution boundary image, said increased resolution boundary
image corresponding to only a portion of an area of said full resolution CT
scan image, based on said prior identified boundary,” and “d) segmenting at
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

7
said computer said increased resolution boundary image to generate a
refined boundary,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants first contend the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Fan, AAPA, and Lestideau teaches or suggests the limitation
“generating at said computer an increased resolution boundary image, said
increased resolution boundary image corresponding to only a portion of an
area of said full resolution CT scan image, based on said prior identified
boundary,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. Although admitting Fan
discloses, “interpolation to overlay segmentation results on an original
image” (App. Br. 7), Appellants further contend “there is no description in
Fan of generating a separate increased resolution boundary image that
corresponds to only a portion of the original image based on a segmentation
result,” so that Fan purportedly fails to disclose the disputed limitation. Id.
In response, and contrary to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner
concludes the recitation of “an increased resolution boundary image” is not
required to be a subset of the original full resolution image. Ans. 20.
Further, Appellants’ Specification at paragraph 20, as cited in their Brief
(App. Br. 6), does not expressly define what is meant by a “boundary
image.” Although Appellants define “binary boundary image” (Spec.
¶ [0027]) in the context of a graphical representation of an image when
applying the graph cut segmentation approach, the Examiner finds it is not
specified as being a subset of the original resolution image. We agree with
the Examiner’s broad, but reasonable interpretation in this regard.
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

8
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as
broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”).
In addition, we find Fan teaches or at least suggests overlaying a
segmentation result from the reduced resolution image on the original image
by interpolation to refine the segmentation result. Ans. 20 (citing Fan
¶ [0031] and Fig. 9, element 564). We agree with the Examiner’s finding,
although not expressly taught by Fan, for this to occur, the reduced
resolution image must be up-sampled or “projected” onto the original
resolution. Ans. 20. We also find Fan teaches or at least suggests the
limitations in dispute by its disclosed process, i.e.:
[I]mage 102 is low-pass filtered and decimated. Then it is
processed at low resolution by the low-resolution segmentation
stage 104. Segmentation results include identification of a
main background and one or more objects . . . [t]his process is
reiterated until all objects are classified in text or picture
classes. Next, the results of the segmentation stage 104 are
overlaid on the image 102 during the original-resolution
refinement stage 106 of the process to refine the segmentation
results.
Fan, ¶ [0014].
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

9
Further, with respect to Appellants’ contention the combination of Fan
and AAPA is improper because Fan’s segmentation is applied to document
images and not CT images (App. Br. 11), we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 22) Fan teaches or at least suggests the applicability of its teachings to
CT mages by its statement, “it is desirable to develop a segmentation
algorithm that is suitable for many, if not all, image processing applications
. . . [and t]he present invention contemplates new and improved methods for
segmenting images that overcome the above-referenced problems.” Fan,
¶¶ [0002], [0003].
We find Appellants’ invention is simply a combination of known
teachings that realize a predictable result. The Supreme Court has
determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated
teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since
the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.
at 420-21. Appellants have presented no evidence that combining Fan’s
segmentation processing with Appellants’ admitted prior art directed to CT
scan processing was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.”
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
In their Reply, Appellants contend Fan’s teaching in paragraph 31 that
“overlaying of the detected backgrounds on the original image is
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

10
accomplished by interpolating the results from low-resolution on the original
(higher) resolution of the original image,” but “does not generate a separate
increased resolution boundary image.” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded
by Appellants’ renewed argument, for the reasons cited above, and given by
the Examiner in connection with Fan’s teaching or at least suggesting a
region growing algorithm on an image border. Ans. 20-21.
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 and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. As Appellants have not provided separate arguments
with respect to independent claim 11, or dependent claims 2, 5-8, 12, 15-18,
27, and 28, rejected on the same basis as claim 1, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. Rejection R1 of Claims 21 and 22
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 5-6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the cited prior art combination 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 of “e) projecting at said computer said
image points onto a higher resolution boundary image J k-1; f) generating at
said computer a graph G k-1 for said higher resolution boundary image J k-1;
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

11
and g) calculating at said computer a minimum cut CK-1 for said graph
G K-1,” as recited in claim 21?
Analysis
Appellants contend,
[Similar to claim 1,] Fan describes interpolating low-resolution
segmentations back to an original image, [but] there is no
description in Fan of generating a distinct increased resolution
boundary image. Independent claim 21 requires that the image
points, identified by nodes in the minimum cut CK used to
segment the lowest resolution image, be projected to the “a
higher resolution boundary image J k-1,” not projected back to
the original image I0. Accordingly, the description in Fan of
interpolating low-resolution segmentation results back to the
original image is not the same as projecting low-resolution
segmentation results to a higher resolution image that is distinct
from the original image. Therefore, Fan fails to teach or
suggest . . . [disputed limitation e)] in independent claim 21.
App. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, disputed limitation e) is taught or
at least suggested by Fan, for reasons similar to those set forth by the
Examiner with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, discussed,
supra. Ans. 15, 22. For example, as with claim 1, we conclude , under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the recitation of “a higher
resolution boundary image” in claim 21 is not required to be a subset of the
original full resolution image.
Appellants further contend, the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest limitations f) and g) in independent claim 21. App. Br. 15.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

12
Fan discloses generating an increased resolution boundary
image and segmenting the increased resolution boundary. The
minimum graph cut algorithm of [A]APA is adopted to perform
segmentation. For the image to be segmented (such as the
increased resolution boundary image at level k-1) the disclosed
minimum graph cut algorithm generates its corresponding
graph and then calculates a minimum cut of that graph.
Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
Ans. 23-24. For the same reasons set forth in connection with claim 1,
supra, we agree the cited combination of prior art teaches or at least suggests
limitations f) and g) of claim 21.
Finally, Appellants contend, “there is no rational reason for
combining Fan with APA in the manner suggested by the Examiner.” App.
Br. 15-16. We disagree. The Examiner relies upon the same motivation to
combine Fan with AAPA in connection with claim 21 as for claim 1, i.e.,
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to apply the invention of Fan to CT
scan images so as to obtain better segmentation results of
different (anatomical) portions of the regions, as well as to
represent segmentation results by boundaries (as taught by
Lestideau) so as to reduce the storage requirement since the
boundary of an object is much smaller than the object itself.
Ans. 12 and 24. We find the Examiner’s stated basis for motivation to
combine the references in the manner suggested meets the legal
requirements for obviousness. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner
has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

13
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). As cited,
supra, we find the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning, and has therefore met the burden under KSR.
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 obviousness rejection of independent claim 21. As Appellants
have not provided separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 22,
rejected on the same basis as claim 21, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3. Rejection R1 of Claims 3 and 13
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 16-17) the Examiner’s rejection of claims
3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the cited prior
art combination 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 “automatically determining at least a
portion of said background,” as recited in claim 3?
Analysis
Appellants contend,
[P]aragraph [0005] of the present specification states that “[a]
user imposes constraints for the segmentation by indicating
certain pixels that are part of the object and certain pixels that
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

14
are part of the background.” There is no description in
paragraph [0005] of automatically determining a portion of the
background. Therefore, neither Fan nor [A]APA, teaches or
suggests “automatically determining at least a portion of said
background,” as recited in claims 3 and 13. Lestideau does not
cure the deficiencies of Fan and [A]APA.
App. Br. 16-17.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “while not expressly
cited in the rejection, Fan does disclose ‘automatically determining at least a
portion of said background’ in Fig. 5 (detail of Fig. 3, ref. 304), refs. 502 &
504 and paragraph 21. (Uniform blocks are automatically determined.)
Therefore the combined invention discloses the recited limitation.”
Ans. 24-25. We agree with the Examiner because “[a]ll of the disclosures in
a reference must be evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill
in the art.” In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965 (CCPA 1966)).
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 obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3. As Appellants have
not provided separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 13,
rejected on the same basis as claim 3, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4. Rejection R1 of Claim 25
Issue 4
Appellants argue (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6-7) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

15
the cited prior art combination 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 method of claim 21, “wherein said step of projecting
said image points onto a higher resolution boundary image J K-1 is performed
according to: J K-1(p) = J K (α(p)),” as recited in claim 25?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance upon Fan Figure 4,
reference number 402, Figure 9, reference number 564, and paragraphs 19
and 31 is in error because Fan provides no description of projecting the low-
resolution segmentation to the original image using the recited function
J K-1(p). We agree with Appellants’ arguments in this regard.
Accordingly, Appellants have provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of the
contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
5. Rejection R2 of Claims 10 and 20
Issue 5
Appellants argue (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the cited prior art combination is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

16
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art combination
teaches or suggests the limitation of “identifying an outer portion of said
dilated projected prior identified boundary as background; and identifying an
inner portion of said dilated projected prior identified boundary as object,”
as recited in claim 10?
Analysis
Appellants contend the portions of Fan cited by the Examiner (Fan
Fig. 6, refs. 520-526, and ¶ [0023]) describe extracting text objects from a
document by detecting horizontal and vertical edges, removing edge pixels
from a main background, identifying objects using connect component
analysis, and extracting the objects from the main background but, in no
way, relates to the limitations of claims 10 and 20 because Fan is silent on
identifying an outer portion of a dilated projected prior identified boundary
as a background and an inner portion of the dilated projected prior identified
boundary are object. App. Br. 17. Appellants further contend AAPA,
Lestideau, and Bitter fail to make up for the purported deficiencies of Fan
with respect to claim 10. App. Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Bitter teaches or at
least suggests a dilation process as discussed in connection with the rejection
of parent claim 9, and the related discussion of claim 4. Ans. 17-18, 25.
We disagree with Appellants’ contention Bitter does not make up for any
deficiencies of the other cited art, and find Bitter teaches or at least suggests,
“[p]referably, a dilate process is performed once after each segmentation
process.” Bitter ¶ [0132].
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

17
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 obviousness rejection of claim 10. As Appellants have not
provided separate arguments with respect to 20, rejected on the same basis
as claim 10, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6. Rejection R2 of Claims 4, 9, 14, 19, 23, and 24
Appellants argue (App. Br. 12-13, 16-17) the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4, 9, 14, 19, 23, and 24 is in error because these claims are allowable
by virtue of their dependence on purportedly allowable claims in their
respective chains of dependency.
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the unpatentability rejection of these claims, and because we sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, and separately argued
dependent claims 3 and 13 from which claims 4, 9, 14, 19, 23, and 24
variously and ultimately depend, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. When
the patentability of dependent claims is not argued separately, the claims
stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err regarding the rejections of claims 1-
24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combinations of prior art of
record, and we sustain the rejections.
Appeal 2011-009050
Application 11/313,102

18
(2) The Examiner erred regarding the rejection of claim 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of prior art of record, and we do
not sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24, 27, and 28,
and we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25.
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-IN-PART

msc