Gupta Sesha Raghavendra. Tulluri et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 5, 2019

13916234 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2019)

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.
13/916,234 06/12/2013 Gupta Sesha Raghavendra Tulluri 90945-878871(000851US) 8506
20350 7590 09/05/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3600
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUPTA SESHA RAGHAVENDRA TULLURI,
MARK THOMPSON,
and DEAN A. SEIFERT
____________

Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,2341
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Western Union
Company of Englewood, Colorado (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Gupta Sesha Raghavendra Tulluri, Mark Thompson, and Dean A.
Seifert (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 2, 3, and 5–24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented computer-implemented transfer systems
including systems and methods for introducing information to and receiving
information from a computer–implemented transfer system. Specification
para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 2, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
2. A method for transferring funds, comprising:
receiving, at a money transfer host computer, a request to
transfer funds from a sender to a receiver;
transmitting, in response to the request to transfer funds, a
transaction identifier and a pass code from the host computer to
the sender, for the sender to provide to the receiver;
receiving, at the money transfer host computer, a request for
pick–up information, the pick–up information relating to a
pick–up location of the receiver;
transmitting, from the money transfer host computer, in
response to receiving the request for pick–up information,
automated teller machine (ATM) information identifying an

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed July 10, 2017) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 25,
2017), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 9, 2017).
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

3
ATM location nearby the receiver where funds may be
received;
and
validating, at the host computer and prior to transferring funds
at an ATM, the transaction identifier and pass code inputted by
the receiver at the ATM.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Marcous US 5,650,604 July 22, 1997
Amos US 6,554,184 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
Britto US 2005/0131816 A1 June 16, 2005
Claims 2, 3, and 5–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–14, 16–20, and 22–24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marcous and Amos.
Claims 7, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marcous, Amos, and Britto.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–24 is affirmed.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
receiving a request for pickup information which related to a pickup location
of the receiver.
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

4
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Marcous
01. Marcous is directed to electronic transfer of funds, and more
particularly to electronic transfer of funds between a sender and a
recipient using an automated teller machine to dispense the funds
transferred to the recipient. Marcous 1:7–11.
02. Marcous describes an initiating terminal for receiving a
designation of an amount of money to be electronically
transferred, an account from which it is to be transferred, and a
security code from the sender, a central terminal for storing the
amount and the encrypted security code in a file in the central
terminal, and a dispensing terminal for receiving from the
recipient an entry corresponding to the designated amount of
money to be transferred and the security code, for providing the
entered amount of money and encrypted security code to the
central terminal for comparison with the information stored in the
central terminal's file, and for dispensing to the recipient funds
equivalent to the designated amount of money without requiring
the recipient to have a card to activate the dispensing terminal.
Marcous 2:52–3:3.
03. Marcous describes a recipient, after obtaining from the sender
the appropriate security information, preferably: 1) the sender's
phone number, 2) the amount of money transferred and, 3) the
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

5
system-generated PIN issued to the sender by the initiating
terminal, then going to an ATM which has electronic funds
transfer capability. Such ATM has been programmed to accept
input from a user without the user needing to use a card of any
type. As a result, the recipient interacts with the ATM, without
using a card, to activate the appropriate menus. The recipient
inputs the information as requested by the ATM screens and the
cash is dispensed to the intended recipient. Marcous 4:16–29.
Amos
04. Amos is directed to devices used to transfer funds or currency
by electronic means. Amos 1:10–11.
ANALYSIS
Claims 2, 3, and 5–24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 2, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent–eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent–ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

6
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that
question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both
individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine
whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the
claim” into a patent–eligible application. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive
concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
itself.”
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first
determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining
whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial
exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited
judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance at 54. If
the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining
whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional
elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited
judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 2 recites receiving request data, transmitting identifier data, receiving
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

7
more request data, transmitting ATM location data, and validating the
identifier data. Validating data is rudimentary data analysis, which to at
least some extent is co–extensive with data reception to ensure the data
matches the data field requirements. Thus, claim 2 recites receiving,
transmitting, and analyzing data. None of the limitations recite
technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite
only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 2 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in–eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 2 recites the concept of
entering data to use an ATM. Specifically, claim 2 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to validate data after sending and

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

8
receiving data. The advice to validate ATM data after sending and receiving
data involves finding an ATM to use, which is an economic act, and
validating the person in order to use the ATM, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 2 recites
“transferring funds,” which is an activity that would take place whenever
one is performing a financial transaction. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“validating . . . prior to transferring funds at an ATM, the transaction
identifier and pass code,” which are also characteristics of financial
transactions.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to transferring,
receiving, and accepting funds. Final Act. 5.
The preamble to claim 2 recites that it is a method for transferring
funds. The steps in claim 2 result in validating data prior to transferring
funds absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional
computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 3 recite data gathering
and limitations 2 and 4 recite data transmission. Limitation 5 recites
rudimentary analyzing of identification and code data, which advise one to
apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite
advice for validating data after sending and receiving data. To advocate
validating data after sending and receiving data is conceptual advice for
results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
computer–implemented transfer systems including systems and methods for
introducing information to and receiving information from a computer-
implemented transfer system. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

9
claim 2 is directed to entering data to use an ATM. This is consistent with
the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because entering data to use an
ATM is simply automation of a commercial financial banking operation.
The concept of entering data to use an ATM by validating data after sending
and receiving data is one idea for ensuring the transaction is proper. The
steps recited in claim 2 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (2014)
(receiving, transmitting, and analyzing data).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 2 is directed
to entering data to use an ATM by validating data after sending and
receiving data, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 2 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon,

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

10
or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 3 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2
and 4 are generic transmitting steps. Step 5 recites generic computer
processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible
means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported
inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired,
and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or
in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellants’ claim 2 simply recites the concept of
entering data to use an ATM by validating data after sending and receiving
data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual
advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer
processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any
particular implementation.
Claim 2 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 25 pages of specification spell out
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

11
different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of entering data to use an ATM by validating data after
sending and receiving data under different scenarios. They do not describe
any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 2 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply entering data to use an ATM by validating data after sending and
receiving data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent–
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 2 is directed to achieving the result of
entering data to use an ATM by advising one to validate data after sending
and receiving data, as distinguished from a technological improvement for

8 The Specification describes personal computers, cell phones with browsers,
PDAs and the like. Spec. para. 7.
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

12
achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal
interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity
that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 2 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent–ineligible abstract idea into a patent–eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

13
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. The limitation of “transferring funds at an ATM, the transaction
identifier and pass code inputted by the receiver at the ATM” is not a step,
but an indication of what is to happen outside the scope of the claim
performance. This is pure aspiration. The action recited in this limitation is
validating data, not disbursing funds, or entering data, and the validation
occurs at the same computer as the earlier steps.
As a corollary, any separation of function between the computer used
in the claim and the ATM used outside the claim is not a structural or
otherwise organizational feature of the claim. The ATM is itself operated as
it is intended, albeit without a card. But a card is just a non-functional token
for embedding identifying data entered into the ATM, which the recipient
still enters. That is, the recipient enters an identifier and PIN and gets funds.
There is no meaningful technological distinction between entering data via a
keyboard or a magnetic stripe. This is again operating an ATM as it is
intended to be operated. All of these computer functions are generic,
routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . .
. those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming”). None of these activities are used in some
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

14
unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result.
Appellants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short,
each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants’ claim 2 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception–transmission–
analysis is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for
exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an
abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two–Way Media Ltd.
v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 2 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 2 is representative. The other independent method claim 12 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. Although claim 12
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

15
adds the limitation of disbursing funds, this is precisely the ordinary, generic
function of an ATM. Reciting disbursing of funds from an ATM is then no
more than advice to have the ATM perform its ordinary generic function,
which is not a technological improvement. Appellants do not argue this
claim separately in any event. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent–ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101
“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of entering data to use an ATM by validating data after
sending and receiving data, without significantly more.
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

16
APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the claims “recite
particular non–generic machines.” Br. 4. As we determine supra, the
Specification describes using personal computers, cell phones with
browsers, PDAs and the like. Any particular programming is not recited in
the claims.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “in the separate
and distinct § 103 analysis of the claims, the Office has not successfully
demonstrated such recitations were known at all.” Br. 5.
“A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search
for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102
novelty.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–14, 16–20, and 22–24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Marcous and Amos
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
[n]othing in the cited portions of Marcous discusses receiving a
request for pickup information which related to a pickup
location of the receiver. Instead, the only thing received from
the receiver in Marcous appears to be an actual dispensing
request to provide the money from the transaction. Locations
are not requested by the receiver, or any other mechanism
therein.
Br. 6. The Examiner does not cite any portions of the references that
describe this and does not respond to this portion of the argument in the
Answer.
Appeal 2018-001854
Application 13/916,234

17
Claims 7, 15, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Marcous, Amos, and Britto
These claims depend from the above claims and so this rejection is
improper for the same reason as the above rejection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–14, 16–20, and 22–24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marcous and Amos is improper.
The rejection of claims 7, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Marcous, Amos, and Britto is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5–24 is affirmed.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED