Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2016

11113733 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111113,733 0412512005
121312 7590 11/10/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bo Zhang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
106861-0598 9664
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipdocketing@foley.com
cmckenna@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO ZHANG, STEPHEN GORDON, and ANDREW ADAMS
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-17 and 22-25, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. Claims 18-21 were cancelled previously. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
September 19, 2011), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
November 1, 2011), Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed April 21,
2011), and Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed December
10, 2010).
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to methods and systems for encoding
video data. Spec. i-f 16. Claims 1 and 9 recite:
1. A method for video encoding a current block within a
picture, said method comprising:
encoding a picture, thereby producing a set of parameters
that characterize the picture;
classifying the picture based on the set of parameters,
thereby producing a first picture classification; and
encoding the picture according to the first picture
classification, thereby producing a video output.
9. A system for video encoding, said system comprising:
a coarse motion estimator for encoding a picture, thereby
producing a set of parameters that characterize the picture;
a classification engine for classifying the picture based
on the set of parameters, thereby producing a first picture
classification; and
a fine motion predictor for encoding the picture
according to the first picture classification, thereby producing a
video output.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gonzales
Hui
Sethuraman
us 5,231,484
us 5,488,419
US 6,434, 196 B 1
2
July 27, 1993
Jan.30, 1996
Aug. 13, 2002
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1-17 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sethuraman. Final Act. 2; Ans. 5-9.
Claims 1--4, 9-11, 15, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hui. Final Act. 3; Ans. 9-10.
Claims 1-17 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gonzales. Final Act. 3; Ans. 12-16.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-17 and
22-25 are in error. Br. 7-26. These arguments present us with the
following issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Sethuraman
discloses a "coarse motion estimator for encoding a
picture, thereby producing a set of parameters that
characterize the picture," a "classification engine for
classifying the picture based on the set of parameters,"
and a "fine motion predictor for encoding the picture
according to the first picture classification," as recited in
claim 9 and similarly recited in claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Sethuraman
discloses the limitation that "the set of parameters that
characterize the picture results from the encoding of a
future macroblock in the picture," as recited in claim 4?
2 The Examiner's headings for the Sethuraman and Gonzales rejections in the
Answer incorrectly state that claims 18-21 also are rejected. See Ans. 5, 12.
Claims 18-21 were cancelled previously.
3
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
(3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Sethuraman
discloses a "statistics collector for measuring spatial
activity in the preprocessed picture," as recited in claim
12 and similarly recited in claim 5?
( 4) Did the Examiner err in finding that Sethuraman
discloses a "spatial predictor for predicting spatial
activity in the picture," as recited in claim 14 and
similarly recited in claim 7?
( 5) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hui discloses
producing "parameters" and a "fine motion predictor for
encoding the picture according to the first picture
classification," as recited in claim 9 and similarly recited
in claim 1 ?
( 6) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hui discloses the
limitation that "the set of parameters that characterize the
picture results from the encoding of a future macroblock
in the picture," as recited in claim 4?
(7) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hui discloses the
limitation that "the coarse motion estimator motion
estimates the picture from the original lossless previous
pictures," as recited in claim 22?
(8) Did the Examiner err in finding that Gonzales discloses
the limitation that "the set of parameters that characterize
the picture results from the encoding of a future
macro block in the picture," as recited in claim 4?
(9) Did the Examiner err in finding that Gonzales discloses a
"spatial predictor for predicting spatial activity in the
picture," as recited in claim 14 and similarly recited in
claim 7?
4
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
ANALYSIS
I. Sethuraman Rejection
Claims 1-3, 8-11, and 15-17
Independent claim 9 recites a system for video encoding comprising
"a coarse motion estimator for encoding a picture, thereby producing a set of
parameters that characterize the picture," "a classification engine for
classifying the picture based on the set of parameters, thereby producing a
first picture classification," and "a fine motion predictor for encoding the
picture according to the first picture classification, thereby producing a video
output." Thus, the classification engine is dependent on the parameters
produced by the coarse motion estimator (classifying the picture "based on
the set of parameters"), and the fine motion predictor is dependent on the
first picture classification produced by the classification engine (encoding
the picture "according to the first picture classification"). The fine motion
predictor, therefore, ultimately is dependent on the coarse motion estimator.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Sethuraman
anticipates claims 1 and 9 because the progression of steps in Sethuraman's
video encoding process differs from the order recited in the claims.
Br. 7-10. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner relies on
motion compensation module 145 in Sethuraman as a "coarse motion
estimator" and motion estimation module 150 as a "fine motion predictor,"
but motion compensation module 145 does not provide any output to motion
estimation module 150; therefore, the alleged "fine motion predictor" is not
dependent on the "coarse motion estimator," as required by the claims. Id.
at 9. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it mischaracterizes the
5
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
findings of the Examiner. The Examiner finds that Sethuraman's motion
estimation module 150 and full pel motion estimator 151-not motion
compensation module 145----constitute a "coarse motion estimator" that
produces a set of parameters, block classifier 102-4 constitutes a
"classification engine" that classifies the picture based on the parameters,
and motion compensation module 145-not motion estimation module
150----constitutes a "fine motion predictor" that encodes the picture
according to its classification. See Ans. 5 (citing Sethuraman, Fig. 1 ),
30-31; Final Act. 2; Non-Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants also argue that the picture classification performed by
block classifier 102-4 is not based on parameters provided by motion
compensation module 145. Br. 9-10. Again, we are not persuaded of error,
as the Examiner relies on motion estimation module 150 and full pel motion
estimator 151-not compensation module 145-as a "coarse motion
estimator." Specifically, the Examiner finds that Sethuraman "teaches a
coarse motion estimator (150 and 151 of fig. 1) for producing a set of
parameters (FPMV [full pel motion vectors], FPD [full pel distortion
signals], HPMV [half pel motion vectors], and HPD [half pel distortion
signals])" to be used by block classifier 102-4. Ans. 30-31 (citing
Sethuraman, col. 7, 11. 21-56, Figs. 5, 6). Appellants do not explain
sufficiently why that finding is in error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 9, as well as independent claim 1, for which Appellants rely on their
arguments regarding claim 9. See Br. 14. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 15-17, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
6
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
Claim 4
Claim 1 recites "encoding a picture, thereby producing a set of
parameters that characterize the picture." Claim 4, which depends from
claim 1, recites that "the set of parameters that characterize the picture
results from the encoding of a future macroblock in the picture." The
Examiner finds that the motion compensation in Sethuraman "involves a
prediction that uses motion vectors to provide offsets into the past and/or
future reference frames containing previously decoded sample values that
are used to form the prediction error," and "this clearly suggests the motion
compensation encoding the future block as the previous decoded sample
value in the future reference frame." Ans. 6, 34 (citing Sethuraman, col. 7,
11. 57-63, col. 8, 11. 12-15, Fig. 1).
Appellants argue that the phrase "future macroblock in the picture"
excludes using macroblock motion vectors from other pictures; therefore,
the Examiner erred in relying on motion vectors from past or future
reference frames in Sethuraman. Br. 15. We agree with Appellants. Claim
4 recites that "the set of parameters that characterize the picture results from
the encoding of a future macro block in the picture" (emphasis added). As
such, the parameters result from encoding a future macroblock in the same
picture, not the encoding of other pictures, such as past or future reference
frames. In the portion of Sethuraman cited by the Examiner, the reference
discloses encoding past or future reference frames, rather than the encoding
of a future macro block in the same picture, as recited in claim 4. See
Sethuraman, col. 7, 11. 57---63, col. 8, 11. 12-23. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
7
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13
Claim 12 recites "a statistics collector for measuring spatial activity in
the preprocessed picture." Claim 5 recites a similar limitation. The
Examiner finds that Sethuraman' s scene change detector 182 in first
pre-processor 101 performs the same function of measuring the spatial
activity of a preprocessed picture as the "statistics collector" that is claimed
and described in the Specification. Ans. 7, 36 (citing Sethuraman, Figs. 1, 8,
Spec. i-f 34 ("The statistics collector 503 receives the preprocessed video data
417, measures spatial activity and field correlation, and detects a scene
change.")). Specifically, scene change detector 182 "receives ... processed
video data ... to measure the spatial activity and correlation (the
differencing), and detects a scene change." Id. at 36.
Appellants argue that scene change detector 182 in Sethuraman does
not collect statistics. Br. 18. Claim 5, however, only recites "measuring
spatial activity in the preprocessed picture," and does not recite collecting
statistics. Claim 12 recites a "statistics collector" that is "for measuring
spatial activity in the preprocessed picture." The Examiner finds that a
particular structure in Sethuraman-scene change detector 182----constitutes
a statistics collector that receives processed video data and measures spatial
activity in the preprocessed picture. Ans. 7, 36. Appellants do not explain
sufficiently why that finding is incorrect, given that scene change detector
182 performs the same function recited in the claim and does so in a similar
manner to what is described in the Specification.
Appellants also argue that scene change detector 182 "would have to
operate[] by comparison of at least two frames," whereas the recited
measuring is "in the preprocessed picture." Br. 18-19. We are not
8
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
persuaded. The claims do not preclude the measurement of spatial activity
in a preprocessed picture by comparing a preprocessed picture to other
pictures. Sethuraman discloses comparing a preprocessed picture to other
pictures to identify "information discontinuities, such as scene changes,"
between the pictures. Sethuraman, col. 4, 11. 13-29. The information
discontinuities would be indicative of spatial activity within the
preprocessed picture that led to the scene change. See id. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Sethuraman discloses "a statistics
collector for measuring spatial activity in the preprocessed picture," as
recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 12.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 13, which depend from claims
5 and 12, respectively, and which Appellants do not argue separately.
Claims 7 and 14
Claim 14 recites "a spatial predictor for predicting spatial activity in
the picture." Claim 7 recites a similar limitation. The Examiner finds that
Sethuraman discloses motion prediction that "is inherently predict[ing] the
spatial activity in the picture according [to the] MPEG standard," which is
the same standard described in the Specification. Ans. 7, 3 7 (citing
Sethuraman, Fig. 1, Spec. i-fi-1 4, 19). Appellants argue that spatial activity
prediction, also referred to as "intra-prediction" in the Specification,
involves the prediction of picture pixels from neighboring pixels, whereas
Sethuraman's motion compensation involves motion prediction that uses
motion vectors from past and/or future reference frames. Br. 20-22 (citing
Sethuraman, col. 7, 11. 57---61, Spec. i138, Fig. 7). We agree with Appellants.
9
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
The Specification states that "[ s ]patial prediction, also referred to as intra
prediction, involves prediction of picture pixels from neighboring pixels."
Spec. i-f 3 8, Fig. 7. The Specification does not describe the use of the MPEG
standard to predict spatial activity in the picture. See id. i-fi-137--41. The
Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Sethuraman's motion
compensation inherently would use the MPEG standard to predict spatial
activity in a picture through the prediction of picture pixels from
neighboring pixels. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 7 and 14.
Claims 22-25
As explained below, we sustain the rejection of claims 22-25 as being
anticipated by Hui. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to address the
additional rejection of these claims based on Sethuraman. See In re Hyon,
679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (not reaching an additional rejection of
the claims at issue after upholding an obviousness rejection); In re Gleave,
560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (not reaching an obviousness rejection
after upholding an anticipation rejection); In re Basel! Poliolefine Italia
S.P.A., 547 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (not reaching additional
rejections after upholding an obviousness-type double patenting rejection);
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (having
decided a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other
matters decided by the presiding officer).
10
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
II. Hui Rejection
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 15
With respect to independent claim 9, the Examiner finds that Hui's
full-pixel motion vector (MV) estimation circuit 3 constitutes a "coarse
motion estimator" that produces a set of parameters (i.e., "full motion
vectors"), horizontal motion detection circuit 11 and switch 25 constitute a
"classification engine" that classifies the picture based on the parameters,
and components 4--9 in Figure 3 of Hui constitute a "fine motion predictor"
that encodes the picture based on its classification. Ans. 9, 31-33.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations.
Appellants make two arguments. First, Appellants argue that Hui's
full-pixel MV estimation circuit 3 provides "motion vectors and blocks,"
which do not constitute "parameters" produced by a coarse motion estimator
"even given the broadest reasonable construction" of the term. Br. 12. We
are not persuaded. Claims 1 and 9 recite the encoding of a picture to thereby
produce a set of parameters that "characterize" the picture, but do not further
limit what constitutes a "parameter." Appellants do not provide an
interpretation for "parameter" or point to any language in the Specification
defining the term. Indeed, the Specification merely refers to unspecified
"[p ]arameters 509" passed to classification engine 405. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 3 6,
Figs. 4, 5. The Examiner finds that Hui's full motion vectors are parameters
because they characterize the picture and are used by horizontal motion
detection circuit 11 to classify the picture. See Ans. 9, 31-33 (citing Hui,
Fig. 3). Hui discloses that motion vectors describe spatial activity of pixels
within a picture. See Hui, col. 2, 11. 3-34. Appellants' bare assertion that the
11
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
full motion vectors are not "parameters" is not sufficient to demonstrate
error by the Examiner. See Br. 12.
Second, Appellants argue that Hui's horizontal motion detection
circuit 11 "only selects the type of interlaced interpolation that is used," and
the operation of components 4--9-----the "fine motion predictor" according to
the Examiner-is "not changed or affected in any way based on the type of
interpolation that is used." Id. Appellants' argument is not persuasive
because it fails to address the specific findings of the Examiner. The
Examiner finds that Hui's motion compensation circuit 5 "perform[s] a fine
motion prediction based on the half pixel motion vector estimation"
provided by half-pixel MV estimation circuit 4 for encoding the picture
according the picture classification (e.g., "frame based or field based blocks
of [the] picture"). Ans. 32-33. Although horizontal motion detection circuit
11 selects the type of interpolation to be used, the half-pixel resolution
blocks created by frame-based interpolation circuit 12 or field-based
interpolation circuit 13 are provided to half-pixel MV estimation circuit 4.
See Hui, col. 7, 1. 22---col. 8, 1. 19. Thus, we do not agree with Appellants
that the operation of components 4--9 is not affected by the interpolation in
Hui.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 9, as well as independent claim 1, for which Appellants rely on their
arguments regarding claim 9. See Br. 14. We also sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 11, and 15, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
12
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites that "the set of parameters that characterize the picture
results from the encoding of a future macroblock in the picture." The
Examiner finds that Hui discloses a "predictive-coded mode in which each
frame is coded using motion compensation prediction from a past
intra-coded or predictive-coded frame or/and a future intra-coded or
predictive-coded frame includ[ ing] a future macro block." Ans. 9-10,
34--35 (emphasis added) (citing Hui, col. 1, 11. 34--49, Fig. 3). Similar to the
rejection based on Sethuraman, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
finding that Hui discloses the limitation of claim 4 because Hui performs
prediction based on past and/ or future reference frames, and does not
disclose parameters that characterize the picture resulting from the encoding
of a future macroblock in "the picture." Br. 15-16. We agree for the same
reasons explained above regarding Sethuraman. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
Claims 22-25
Claim 9 recites "a coarse motion estimator for encoding a picture,
thereby producing a set of parameters that characterize the picture." Claim
22, which depends from claim 9, recites the limitation that "the coarse
motion estimator motion estimates the picture from the original lossless
previous pictures." Appellants argue that rather than storing original lossless
previous pictures for use by the coarse motion estimator, Hui discloses
storing merged fields within reference frame memory 10. Br. 24--25.
We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner. The two field data of
input interlaced video signal 1 7 in Hui are merged to form a merged
13
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
interlaced field frame in current frame memory 1. See Hui, col. 5,
1. 64---col. 6, 1. 7, Fig. 3. The merged interlaced field frame is not lossy (i.e.,
lossless) because the interlaced field frames have not been compressed. See
id. The incoming merged field frame is stored in reference frame memory
10 for later use during motion estimation. Id. at col. 5, 1. 64---col. 6, 1. 14,
col. 7, 11. 5-21. As the Examiner finds, Hui discloses "original lossless
previous pictures" because no compression is applied to the merged
interlaced frames that are stored in reference frame memory 10 and used
subsequently for coarse motion estimation. Ans. 42 (citing Hui, Fig. 3).
We agree with the Examiner's findings because the interlaced merged
picture is a previous picture made up of merged interlaced fields, and the
interlaced fields that make up the previous picture have not been
compressed. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Hui discloses the limitation that "the coarse motion estimator
motion estimates the picture from the original lossless previous pictures."
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 23-25, which depend from claim 22 and
which Appellants do not argue separately.
III. Gonzales Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15-17, and 22-25
Having sustained the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, and 15-17 as
being anticipated by Sethuraman, and sustained the rejection of claims
22-25 as being anticipated by Hui, it is unnecessary for us to address the
additional rejection of these claims based on Gonzales. See Hyon, 679 F .3d
14
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
at 1367; Gleave, 560 F.3d at 1338; Basel! Poliolefine, 547 F.3d at 1379;
Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites that "the set of parameters that characterize the picture
results from the encoding of a future macroblock in the picture." The
Examiner finds that Gonzales discloses "interpolative motion compensation
... in which the predictor is an average of a block from the previous
predicting picture and a block from the future predicting picture." Ans. 13,
35 (emphasis added) (citing Gonzales, col. 5, 11. 13-20, Figs. 5, 6). Similar
to the rejections based on Sethuraman and Hui, Appellants argue that the
Examiner erred in finding that Gonzales discloses the limitation of claim 4
because Gonzales performs prediction based on past and/ or future reference
frames, and does not disclose parameters that characterize the picture
resulting from the encoding of a future macroblock in "the picture."
Br. 16-1 7. We agree for the same reasons explained above regarding
Sethuraman and Hui. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 4.
Claims 7 and 14
Claim 14 recites "a spatial predictor for predicting spatial activity in
the picture." Claim 7 recites a similar limitation. The Examiner finds that
Gonzales discloses the use of a motion estimation module to predict the
spatial activity of a macroblock within a picture by predicting the motion of
pixels within the macroblock using data from past and/or future reference
frames, noting that "the difference between the spatial location of the
15
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
[macroblock] and that of its predictor is referred to as a motion vector."
Ans. 15, 38 (citing Gonzales, col. 4, 1. 55---col. 5, 1. 7, col. 16, 11. 34--35).
Similar to the rejection based on Sethuraman, Appellants argue that spatial
activity prediction involves the prediction of picture pixels from neighboring
pixels, unlike Gonzales's process involving motion vectors from past and/or
future references frames. Br. 22. We agree for the same reasons explained
above regarding Sethuraman. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 14.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sethuraman.
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 4, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Sethuraman.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1-3, 9-11, 15, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hui.
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hui.
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 4, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Gonzales.
16
Appeal2014-005400
Application 11/113,733
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5,
6, 8-13, 15-17, and 22-25 is affirmed, and the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 4, 7, and 14 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17