Ex Parte Weaver et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 201311366116 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/366,116 03/02/2006 Neil Weaver PACBAG.P01 3099 7590 09/20/2013 PATRICK M. DWYER PC #322 14419 Greenwood Avenue SEATTLE, WA 98133 EXAMINER CHAUDRY, ATIF H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3753 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2013 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 NEIL WEAVER, JOSEF LOMBARDI, CASSADY LATON, BARRY KORTHUIS, and WILLIAM WALTERS ____________________ Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-21. Br. 2. Claims 8 and 9 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 18-20 are independent. Claim 1 reads: 1. A pressure relief valve, the valve comprising: a valve body, the valve body having a valve chamber, the valve chamber having a valve seat on a structure raised above a valve chamber base surface and at least one gas port through the valve seat, the gas port adapted for fluid communication of gases through the valve chamber, from one side of the valve to the other side of the valve, the valve seat further comprising a substantially hemispherical dome with a truncated generally flat surface; whereby control of the fluid communication is effected by a resilient, non-perforated diaphragm having a seat engaging side and a seat engaging side first surface area, the diaphragm adapted to float within the valve chamber and to inter-engage the valve seat to selectably block fluid flow through the valve seat gas port; the valve seat further comprising a generally flat diaphragm-engaging surface having a second surface area, the second surface area being less than the first surface area. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pickl (US 5,692,539; iss. Dec. 2, 1997). Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 3 2. Claims 10-12, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalert (US 3,277,830; iss. Oct. 11, 1966) and Wolfe (US 4,812,265; iss. Mar. 14, 1989). 3. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalert, Wolfe, and Alsop (US 6,405,996 B1; iss. Jun. 18, 2002). 4. Claims 4-7, 13-15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalert, Alsop, and Wolfe, Urquhart (US 5,992,442; iss. Nov. 30, 1999). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 10 and 20 as anticipated by Pickl Claim 10 recites, inter alia, the limitation “the diaphragm adapted to float within the valve chamber and to inter-engage the valve seat to selectably block fluid flow through the valve seat gas port.” The Examiner found that Pickl discloses a pressure relief valve comprising a valve chamber 43 having a valve seat 30, and a diaphragm (disc 44) “adapted to float within the valve chamber 43.” Ans. 4-5 (see also Pickl, col. 3, ll. 16-17; fig. 1). We note that Pickl discloses that a biasing means (spring 46) disposed within chamber 43 urges disc 44 into engagement with valve seat 31. Pickl, col. 3, ll. 19-22; fig. 1. Pickl states “[t]he function of the biasing means is to apply a positive force to the disc 44 in opposition to the force of the liquid, in the inlet 16, on the disc 44 [emphasis added].” Pickl, col. 3, ll. 28-31; fig. 1. Accordingly, disc 44 is spring-biased by spring 46. Appellants contend that the term “float” is defined in the Specification: “‘[t]he diaphragm floats freely above the generally flat top of Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 4 the dome, not in any significant way clamped, pinched or held against the truncated dome-shaped valve seat.’” Br. 7 (citing Spec. 3, ll. 16-18). Appellants also reference the description at page 2, line 21 to page 3, line 1, of the Specification. Id. at 7-8. Appellants contend that “float” “means there is no kind of clamping or holding force, and certainly no spring bias, to affect the motion of the diaphragm.” Id. at 8. Appellants also provide dictionary definitions of “float” as “[t]o move easily or lightly” and “move lightly, as if suspended,” to support their definition. Id. Appellants contend that “float” “has a definition that is inconsistent with the use of springs to hold a diaphragm in place, and that ‘float’ is defined, separately or in combination with the specification, to mean, ‘move easily or lightly or move as if suspended, without any holding or clamping forces applied.’” Id. The Examiner disagreed with Appellants that “float” is defined in the Specification, and construed “float” as encompassing application of a spring-biasing force to a diaphragm, as taught by Pickl. Ans. 14. Thus, Appellants and the Examiner disagree about the meaning of the term “float.” The Patent and Trademark Office determines the scope of claims “not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification does not clearly assign a specific definition of “float.” Where the Specification does not assign or suggest a specific definition to a claim term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the term in determining its ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec., Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 5 Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The dictionary definitions of “float” proffered by Appellants appear to be consistent with the disclosure in Appellants’ Specification discussed supra. We note another dictionary definition of “float” is “1a: to cause to float in or on the surface of a fluid b: to cause to float as if in a fluid.” See Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003). This definition appears to be consistent with the description in Appellants’ Specification that “[w]hen the interior pressure increases above the threshold pressure, at least a portion of the diaphragm is disengaged from the seat by the increased pressure, allowing the gases to pass through the gas port(s) and around the diaphragm.” See Spec. 2, ll. 24- 26. We understand that this increased gas pressure lifts (disengages) the diaphragm from the valve seat. Appellants’ Specification also describes that “[a]fter the interior pressure is thus relieved, the resilient diaphragm resumes its former position and again plugs the gas port or ports.” Spec. 2, l. 26 – Spec. 3, l. 1. We understand that when the interior pressure is relieved, the diaphragm drops downward to reengage the valve seat and plug the gas port(s). The diaphragm “floats” on the gas. In contrast, Pickl’s spring 46 opposes downward movement of disc 44 at all times, and thus when liquid pressure applies a downward force on the top surface of disc 44. This spring-biasing force continues to be applied after the disc 44 is disengaged from seat 30. We agree with Appellants that Pickl’s disc 44 is not “adapted to float within the valve chamber,” as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. Claim 20 also recites the limitation “the diaphragm adapted to float within the valve chamber and to inter-engage the valve seat to selectably Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 6 block fluid flow through the valve seat gas port.” We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20. Rejection of claims 10-12, 16-18, and 20 as unpatentable over Kalert and Wolfe Appellants argue claims 10 and 20 together (Br. 12-13), and present separate argument for claims 11 and 12 (id. at 13; see also id. at 10-11), claim 17 (id. at 13), and claim 18 (id. at 14; see also id. at 9-10). Accordingly, we analyze claims 10, 16, and 20; claims 11 and 12; claim 17; and claim 18 as separate groups. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). Claims 10, 16, and 20 Regarding claim 10, the Examiner found that Kalert discloses a valve comprising a valve seat (seating surface 71), and a diaphragm (valve member 76) which floats in the valve chamber (well 68). Ans. 5 (see also Kalert, col. 3, l. 75 – col. 4, l. 3; col. 4, ll. 25-29; fig. 4). The Examiner determined that Kalert does not disclose “a generally flat diaphragm engaging area for the seat.” Id. at 6. The Examiner found that Wolfe discloses a valve seat for a diaphragm (disc 8) having a truncated flat diaphragm engaging area. Ans. 6; see also Wolfe, col. 2, ll. 1-2 and 9-11; figs. 5, 6. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to provide Kalert’s valve with the flat-surface valve seat taught by Wolfe to improve sealing of the seat by the diaphragm. Ans. 6. Appellants contend that Wolfe “teaches that valve disk 8 must be biased by actuator 6 to a closed position for the valve seat 28,” and Kalert teaches using a free-floating diaphragm. Br. 9. Appellants contend that Wolfe teaches away from the claimed subject matter and also from Kalert. Id. at 13. However, the Examiner explained that the combination is not related to the biasing mechanisms of the valves of Wolfe and Kalert, but to Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 7 the “diaphragm-to-seat interface of the two valves.” Ans. 15. The Examiner also explained that Wolfe is cited “to show incorporation of a flat seating surface to a diaphragm-seat arrangement and the primary reference discloses a floating valve.” Id. at 16-17. The description of an implementation in the prior art that differs from the Appellants’ claimed invention, without more, does not show that the prior art “teaches away” from the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Wolfe discloses a truncated conical valve seat 28 contiguous with the lower surface 81 of disk 8. See Wolfe, col. 2, ll. 9-11, 27-28; figs. 4, 5. The particular disclosure in Wolfe described by Appellants does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” use of Wolfe’s flat diaphragm-engaging surface of valve seat 28 in the valve structure of Kalert including a free-floating diaphragm. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Appellants’ contention that Wolfe teaches away is not persuasive. Claim 10 also recites “at least one gas port through the valve seat, the gas port adapted for fluid communication of gases through the valve chamber, from one side of the valve to the other side of the valve.” The Examiner found that Kalert’s valve includes a fluid port (inlet 64). Ans. 5; see also Kalert, col. 3, 72-75; fig. 4. The Examiner found that the term “gas” in “gas port” is an intended use, and stated that if prior art is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. Ans. 6. In contrast, Appellants contend: The liquid passages identified by the Examiner in the cited references are not gas ports, and cannot be made to function as gas ports, and the Examiner has not suggested how such liquid passages could be made to function as gas ports. Indeed, it is well known that structures for gas ports differ Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 8 materially from structures for liquid passages, especially in the carburetor art. Br. 13 (emphasis added). Appellants do not, however, identify any claimed structure for the gas port that Kalert lacks. As stated in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971): where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. The burden shifts to Appellants to show that the prior art does not possess that characteristic. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 212-13). This same burden applies when the rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id. at 1255. Here, the Examiner articulated a reasonable basis for finding that Kalert’s fluid port is capable of functionally serving as the claimed “gas port.” Kalert is not required to explicitly describe use of inlet 64 as a “gas port,” and Appellants have presented no persuasive argument or objective evidence showing that inlet 64 cannot provide this function. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s rationale for combining the reference teachings is inconsistent with well-known scientific and engineering principles. Br. 14. Appellants dispute that “a flat and relatively broader seating surface provides better sealing with a valve member than a thin sealing surface.” Id. However, Appellants provide no persuasive argument or evidence showing that providing Kalert’s valve with a flat- surface valve seat would not improve sealing of the seat by the diaphragm. Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 9 Appellants also dispute that “such a broader sealing surface would provide increased air passage, rather than decreased, or unchanged, air passage.” Id. However, Appellants do not indicate where the Examiner also relied on this reasoning for the rejection. In view of the above, Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, and claims 16 and 20, which fall with claim 10. Claims 11 and 12 Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and recites “the surface area of the diaphragm engaging surface of the valve seat is 5% to 60% of the surface area of the engaging side of the diaphragm.” Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and specifies the range as 9% to 40%. The Examiner found that Kalert’s valve seat and seat engaging side of the diaphragm each have an area, and also that the area of the seat engaging side of the diaphragm is larger than the area of the seat that engages the diaphragm. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to have used the claimed optimal ranges, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 7 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)). Appellants dispute the Examiner’s determination that the claimed surface areas of the diaphragm and valve seat are result-effective variables. Br. 11. The applicable legal principles are as follows: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. This rule is limited to cases in which the optimized Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 10 variable is a “result-effective variable.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); see [In re] Boesch, 617 F.2d [272,] 276 [(CCPA 1980)] (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable ... is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner stated “the surface area of the valve seat and diaphragm . . . are result effective variables as working parts of the valve structure.” Ans. 17 (emphasis added). This response does not adequately address Appellants’ argument. First, the Examiner refers to the “valve seat 30” and “diaphragm 44” in Kalert (id. at 10-11), whereas the Examiner relied on Kalert’s disclosure of “valve seat 71” and “diaphragm 76” for the rejection of claim 10. Second, the Examiner did not identify any evidence that the claimed variables provide a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620 (finding no disclosure of the relationship between the recited variable and the result in the prior art). As such, there is insufficient evidence before us that the recited variables were recognized in the prior art as result-effective variables. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12. Claim 17 Claim 17 depends from claim 10. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not make a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kalert and Wolfe meets the limitations of claim 17. Br. 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17. Claim 18 Independent claim 18 recites “the valve seat further comprising a generally flat diaphragm engaging surface shaped and sized such that the diaphragm overlaps the periphery of the diaphragm engaging surface of the valve seat.” Emphasis added. The Examiner found that Kalert’s diaphragm Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 11 (valve member 76) overlaps the surface of the valve seat (seating surface 71). Ans. 5-6. Appellants contend that claim 18 distinguishes “over any reference in which any part of the outer edge of an annular valve seat (its periphery) is not overlapped by the outer edge of the diaphragm, as the claim clearly requires.” Br. 10 (emphasis added). Appellants also contend that Kalert shows only “a partial overlap of a part of the periphery of valve seat 69.” Id.; see also id. at 14. Appellants further contend that the claim does not recite “‘overlaps a part of the periphery,’” but recites “overlaps the periphery,” and Kalert does not show such an overlap. Id. These contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner found that Kalert discloses in Figure 4 that the diaphragm completely overlaps the outer periphery of valve seat 69. Ans. 16. We agree that Figure 4 shows such overlap. Furthermore, to the extent that Appellants contend that the recitation “overlaps the periphery” means “overlaps the entire periphery,” Appellants do not provide any basis for this limiting construction, or provide any persuasive reason why the Examiner’s construction is unreasonable. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 18. Rejection of claims 1-3 as unpatentable over Kalert, Wolfe, and Alsop Claim 1 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner relied on Wolfe for the limitation “the valve seat further comprising a generally-flat diaphragm- engaging surface.” Ans. 8. Claim 1 further recites “the valve seat comprising a substantially hemispherical dome with a truncated generally flat surface.” The Examiner found that Kalert does not disclose a truncated Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 12 substantially hemispherical dome shaped valve seat. Id. at 8-9. The Examiner found that Alsop teaches a diaphragm 50 engaging a seat (stop 120) having a flat surface and concave sides and forming a truncated dome shape. Id. at 9. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to provide Kalert’s valve with the truncated dome shaped valve seat taught by Alsop to increase the diaphragm engaging surface area. Id. Appellants contend that Alsop’s seat structure 120 is not a “dome.” Br. 15. In response, the Examiner stated that “dome is defined as ‘[a] ceiling or roof having a rounded form, hemispherical or nearly so when on a large scale is usually called dome.’” Ans. 17. The Examiner also stated “a truncated dome is not required to be exactly hemispherical and any rounded form can be considered dome-shaped.” Id. We disagree with the Examiner’s position that “any rounded form can be considered dome- shaped.” Rather, we agree with Appellants in that the Examiner’s definition of “dome” actually defines this term as a ceiling or roof having a hemispherical or nearly hemispherical form, not just “any rounded form.” See Br. 16. This interpretation is consistent with another dictionary definition of “dome” as “a hemispherical roof or vault or a structure of similar form.” Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003). Applying these definitions of “dome,” we agree with Appellants that Alsop’s stop 120 does not have a “dome” shape. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious, as discussed infra. The Examiner acknowledged that Kalert, as modified by Alsop, fails to include a substantially hemispherical dome (Ans. 9), and concluded that it would have been obvious to make Kalert’s valve seat in this shape as a mere change of Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 13 shape of a component (id.). The Examiner further reasoned that mere matters of design choice, such as a change in shape or configuration, which fail to solve any problem or produce any unexpected result, are generally obvious. Id. (citing In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). In response, Appellants contend that none of the claimed structural limitations are “‘mere matters of design choice.’” Br. 15. Appellants have not, however, provided any evidence that the claimed substantially hemispherical dome shape solves a stated problem or provides any unexpected result. Accordingly, Appellants contentions are not persuasive. Lastly, claim 1 also recites the limitation “the diaphragm adapted to float within the valve chamber.” Appellants contend that the applied references fail to teach this limitation. However, Kalert describes valve member 76 as “free floating.” See Kalert, col. 4, ll. 25-29. In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2 and 3 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “the surface area of the diaphragm engaging surface of the valve seat is 16 % to 80 % of the surface area of the engaging side of the diaphragm.” Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and specifies a range of 40% to 55%. The Examiner’s findings (Ans. 10-11) and Appellants’ contentions (Br. 15) for claims 2 and 3 are substantially similar to those discussed supra in regard to claims 11 and 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3. Rejection of claims 4-7, 13-15, 19, and 21 as unpatentable over Kalert, Wolfe, Urquhart, and Alsop Claims 4, 13, and 19 Claims 4 and 13 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and each recites “the diaphragm is generally circular.” Independent claim 19 recites a Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 14 “generally circular diaphragm.” The Examiner found that Kalert discloses a triangular diaphragm. Ans. 11. The Examiner found that Urquhart teaches a circular disk (diaphragm 16) and retaining posts 48, and concluded that it would have been obvious to provide these elements in Kalert’s valve “as a functionally equivalent art-recognized substitute valve securing and fluid flow mechanism.” Id. Appellants contend that Kalert discloses valve member 76 exclusively as non-circular, “‘formed to engage [. . .] at a limited number of points’” and shows the valve member as roughly triangular shaped with three peripheral tabs 80, 81, 82. Br. 17 (citing Kalert, col. 4, ll. 30-41; figs. 3, 4). We note that Kalert discloses: As shown by phantom lines in FIGURE 4, when valve member 76 is in the uppermost position thereby engaging abutting member 74, contact with the latter is made [entirely] at the 3 discrete points peripherally spaced along the surface of member 74. Thus, because of the minimized total contact area, there will be little tendency for adhesion of valve member 76 to the abutting member 74 as a result of capillary action between said respective 50 members due to liquid retained therebetween. See Kalert, col. 4, ll. 42-50. In response, the Examiner stated that Kalert’s diaphragm is non- circular (triangular) shaped to allow fluid passage, and at the same time to retain the triangular diaphragm by means of its corners against circular retainer 74. Ans. 18. The Examiner stated that Urquhart teaches an alternative method of retaining the diaphragm while still allowing fluid passage, with a circular diaphragm and diaphragm retaining posts 48. Id. Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 15 We disagree with Appellants’ contention that the applied references teach away from use of a circular diaphragm in Kalert’s valve. Br. 17. While Kalert discloses use of a non-circular diaphragm to achieve minimal contact area, the Examiner’s modification of Kalert by substituting triangular valve member 76 with a circular diaphragm, and incorporating diaphragm retaining posts 48, as taught by Urquhart, would appear to also achieve minimal contact area between the circular diaphragm and the surface (i.e., retaining posts) abutted by the circular diaphragm when disengaged from the valve seat. We find that the Examiner has articulated an adequate reason with a rational underpinning to support the rejection. Appellants have not apprised us of any error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning. We sustain the rejection of claims 4, 13, and 19. Claims 5-7, 14, and 15 Claims 5-7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 4 and recite numerical values with respect to the shape and size of the truncated dome. Claims 14 and 15 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13 and recite the same limitations as claims 5 and 6, respectively. The Examiner stated that claims 5-7, 14, and 15 do not add any new limitations except for providing optimum ranges. However, the Examiner has not identified evidence that the claimed variables provide a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620. As such, there is insufficient evidence before us that the recited variables were recognized in the prior art as result-effective variables. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-7, 14, and 15. Claim 21 Appellants do not provide additional argument for claim 21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 21. Appeal 2011-010625 Application 11/366,116 16 DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 16, and 18-21 is AFFIRMED, and the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 is REVERSED. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation