Xerox Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020000993 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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.
14/513,822 10/14/2014 Peter Zehler 20131828US01/106681.44501 8652
75313 7590 08/02/2021
XEROX CORPORATION C/O FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
Princeton, NJ 08648-2311
EXAMINER
BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER ZEHLER, GAVAN LEONARD TREDOUX,
PREMKUMAR RAJENDRAN and KANISHK JAIN
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–14, and 16–24. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Xerox
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to configuring a network using a mobile
device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of configuring a network using a mobile device
comprising:
by one or more sensors of a mobile device, detecting a
gesture sequence that comprises one or more gestures, wherein
each gesture of the gesture sequence consists of a motion of the
mobile device in response to at least one user performed action;
and
by a network application of the mobile device: accessing
a network configuration database that comprises a plurality of
gesture sequences and a plurality of associated tasks;
recognizing the detected gesture sequence by
identifying a match for the detected gesture sequence
among the plurality of gesture sequences in the network
configuration database;
using the match to identify an associated task that
comprises a network configuration action for configuring
at least one network device that is not connected to the
network to enable the at least one network device to
establish a connection with the network based on network
configuration rules associated with the at least one
network device; and
performing the network configuration action to
enable the at least one network device to establish the
connection with the network.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Marvit US 2005/0212751 A1 Sept. 29, 2005
Westerman US 2008/0309632 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Wong US 2013/0069985 A1 Mar. 21, 2013
Herron US 2013/0090064 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
Tinnakornsrisuphap US 2013/0223279 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Holz US 2014/0282282 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10–13, 17, 18, and 20–22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap. Final Act. 6.
Claims 1, 2, 5–13, and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Marvit in view of Herron. Final Act. 15.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marvit in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap and Holz. Final
Act. 25.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marvit in view of Herron and Holz. Final Act. 27.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wong in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap. Final Act. 29.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wong in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap and Westerman. Final Act. 31.

Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

4
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10–13, 17,
18, 20–22
103 Marvit,
Tinnakornsrisuphap
1, 2, 5–13, 16–22 103 Marvit, Herron
3, 14 103 Marvit,
Tinnakornsrisuphap,
Holz
3, 14 103 Marvit, Herron, Holz
23 103 Wong,
Tinnakornsrisuphap
24 103 Wong,
Tinnakornsrisuphap,
Westerman

OPINION
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10–13, 18, and 20–222 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Marvit in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap
Appellant argues that “Marvit fails to teach or suggest using a gesture
sequence to identify a task comprising a network configuration action for
configuring at least one network device, and then performing the identified
network configuration action to enable the at least one network device to
access the network.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues that

2 Please note the rejections of claims 6 and 17 as unpatentable over Marvit
and Tinnakornsrisuphap are discussed infra.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

5
Tinnakornsrisuphap fails to teach or reasonably suggest
detecting a gesture that consists of a motion of the mobile
device, and therefore cannot teach or suggest a identifying
(using a gesture sequence) a ‘task that comprises a network
configuration action for configuring at least one network
device that is not connected to the network to enable the at least
one network device to access the network based on network
configuration rules associated with the at least one network
device.’
Appeal Br. 12.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the
ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test
for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations
because the arguments do not address the combined teachings.
The Examiner finds that Marvit teaches a user moving a handheld
device in an “O” motion gesture as input. Final Act. 7 (citing Marvit para.
137). The “O” motion is detected by the handheld device as a series of
accelerations of movement, and the handheld device accesses a gesture
database, which includes a plurality of gestures recognizable by the device.
Id. at 7–8 (citing Marvit Figure 18, para. 137). The handheld device maps
the gesture “O” to a particular function such as scrolling a web page, calling
a certain number, authentication, etc. Id. at 8–9 (citing Marvit para. 137–
138, 116–117).
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

6
Further, the Examiner finds that Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches a mobile
device (104) that is already connected to a network can be utilized to
configure an enrollee (106 smart device). Final Act. 9–10 (citing
Tinnakornsrisuphap para. 19, Fig. 1). That is, Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches a
mobile device (104) which is connected to a WLAN access point (102) and
therefore, has knowledge of the requisite device/network credentials for
communicating with the WLAN access point including a service set
identifier (SSID) and a WPA2 passphrase. Tinnakornsrisuphap para. 19,
Fig. 1. The mobile device (104) connects via a WiFi direct to a smart
appliance (106) which is currently not attached to the WLAN access point
by performing a WiFi direct handshake procedure. Id. The mobile device
and the smart appliance establish a binding, the mobile device scans a QR
code, which represents a PIN for the smart appliance. Id. After, the PIN is
successfully entered, the mobile device can provide the SSID and WPA2
passphrase to the smart appliance and the smart appliance can use the SSID
and WPA2 passphrase to connect to the WLAN access point. Id. That is,
while Appellant argues that Marvit does not teach a network configuration
action for configuring at least one network device, and then performing the
identified network configuration action to enable the at least one network
device to access the network, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches these limitations.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant is attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based upon their combined
teachings. In other words, the combined teachings of Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap, taken as a whole, teach the claimed limitations.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

7
Appellant further argues that the Final Action failed to provide
articulated reasoning for combining the prior art references and improperly
used hindsight. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan
would have been motivated to modify Marvit’s device such that its inputted
gestures connect other secondary devices to a network because many
devices are too small or inexpensive to include means for connecting
themselves to a network. So, it would be advantageous to provide a means
for connecting these devices using a first smartphone, given the ubiquity of
smartphones (i.e., mobile devices). Ans. 5 and Final Act. 3–4 (citing
Tinnakornsrisuphap para. 16); also see Tinnakornsrisuphap para. 17.
We agree with the Examiner that:
Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
As discussed supra, the Examiner finds that Marvit teaches assigning
a particular function or action to a particular motion or gesture of the mobile
device. Marvit Figure 18, para. 137. Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches the mobile
device can provide the SSID and WPA2 passphrase to the smart appliance
and the smart appliance can use the SSID and WPA2 passphrase to connect
to the WLAN access point. Tinnakornsrisuphap para. 19, Fig. 1.
Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches allowing a mobile device already connected to
an access point to transfer SSID and WPA2 passphrase information to a
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

8
smart appliance that is not connected to the access point is more user-
friendly than alternatives. Id. at 16.
Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Marvit and Tinnakornsrisuphap with the motivation stemming
from Tinnakornsrisuphap’s teaching of a user friendly alternative of
connecting smart devices to a network using a smartphone (i.e., mobile
device) and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s
disclosure.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13,
18, and 20–22 not argued separately.

Claims 1, 2, 5, 7–13, 16, 18–223 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Marvit in view of Herron.
Appellant argues that “Herron fails to teach a gesture performed by a
mobile device that is mapped to a task for configuring a different network
device to enable the network device (and not the mobile device) to connect
to a network.” Appeal Br. 16. Further, Appellant argues that “the
performance of the gesture (i.e., movement of the smart device) in Herron
does not initiate a network configuration action to enable a network device
(that is not already connected to a network) to connect to the network.”
Reply Br. 6.

3 Please note the rejections of claims 6 and 17 as unpatentable over Marvit
and Herron are discussed infra.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

9
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Arguments must be
commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim
scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). We give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 1 recites “by a network application of the mobile device . . .
performing the network configuration action to enable the at least one
network device to establish the connection with the network” (emphasis
added). Contrary to Appellant’s argument claim 1 does not require a gesture
performed by a mobile device that is mapped to a task for configuring a
different network device. The claims do not preclude the mobile device from
being the at least one network device. That is, Appellant’s arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The Specification
states a network device is a device that is accessible to a network and
capable of being configured and comprises smartphones, personal
computers, etc. Spec. para. 23. Thus, consistent with Appellant’s own
Specification the “network device” includes smartphones (i.e., mobile
devices). Therefore, as claimed, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that,
under the broadest but reasonable interpretation, the mobile device can be
the at least one network device and the claim does not require the network
device to be different from the mobile device itself.4

4 We note in passing that during ex parte prosecution, claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since Applicants have
the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

10
Further, we also do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Herron
does not initiate a network configuration action to enable a network device
to connect to the network. Herron teaches that an access point may discover
other smart devices entering the vicinity of the access point system and the
smart device may begin communicating with the access point system. Final
Act. 18 (citing Herron para. 66). Herron also teaches that if the mobile
device wants to affect further communications and connection to services
provided by the access point, a deliberate gesture must be performed by the
user. Id. That is, the initial discovery of other devices in a network is not
akin to being connected to the network. The connection to the network
occurs once the gesture is performed.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of Herron.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 7–11, 13, 16,
18–22 not argued separately.

Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wong in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap.
Appellant argues that Wong teaches against configuring a print device
that is not connected to a network to enable the print device to access the
network. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant further argues that Wong is already
connected to a network to be able to receive communications from the head

the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellant
could amend the claim language to require a gesture performed by a mobile
device that is mapped to a task for configuring a different network device.

Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

11
mounted display (HDM). Appeal Br. 22. Appellant also argues that Wong
cannot teach or suggest identifying a task, based on a gesture that comprises
a print device configuration action for enabling the print device to access a
network. Reply Br. 9.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the
ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test
for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that Wong in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations
because the arguments do not address the combined teachings.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches
one of ordinary skill in the art how to plan for the contingency of Wong’s
print device losing its connection or needing an initial connection setup, i.e.,
by instructing the skilled artisan to improve devices such as Wong’s print
device with the gestures and corresponding connection actions provided in
Tinnakornsrisuphap. Ans. 8. In particular, Wong teaches a wearable
computing device that includes a head-mounted display (HDM) that
facilitates the wearer’s interaction with a target device. Final Act. 29 (citing
Wong para. 71). The interaction includes providing a virtual control
interface for configuring a copier. Id. (citing Wong para. 97). The motion
(i.e., gesture) of the wearer’s head may be detected and this detected motion
(i.e., gesture) may correspond to control instructions of the copier. Id. at 29–
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

12
30. That is, Wong teaches a motion gesture of a mobile computing device
that performs a task on another device.
The Examiner finds that Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches the mobile
device can provide the SSID and WPA2 passphrase to the smart appliance
and the smart appliance can use the SSID and WPA2 passphrase to connect
to the WLAN access point. Final Act. 31 (citing Tinnakornsrisuphap para.
19, Fig. 1). Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches allowing a mobile device already
connected to an access point to transfer SSID and WPA2 passphrase
information to a smart appliance that is not connected to the access point is
more user-friendly than alternatives. Id. para. 16.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings
of Wong in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap would result in the claimed
invention. We do not agree with Appellant’s contention that Wong teaches
against configuring a print device that is not connected to a network to
enable the print device to access the network because the copier is already
connected to the network. Appeal Br. 22–23.
One skilled in the art would recognize that Wong’s print device has a
network connection that is not infallible and unbreakable, and a computer
sometimes loses its connection to a network, or entirely lacks a connection
altogether (i.e., during initial setup when they are fresh out of the box). Ans.
8. An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Wong does not teach “against”
or away from connecting its print device to the network, but instead Wong’s
lack of teaching about the print device being in a disconnected state is best
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

13
understood as a shortcoming that Tinnakornsrisuphap explicitly recognizes
and remedies. Id. We agree with the Examiner that “if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.” Ans. 8–9 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap.

Claim 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wong in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap and further in view of Westerman.
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24, dependent from
claim 23, not argued separately.

Claims 3 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Marvit in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap and Holz.
Appellant argues the system in Holz prompts the user to create a
record only if no record exist in a database at all and this is different from
prompting a user to create a record in response to determining that there is
no match for a detected gesture sequence. Appeal Br. 24.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the
ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test
for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

14
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds that “Holz never says that the database 232 has no
records, instead, it explains what happens for the contingency of ‘if no
corresponding records are found” for a specific input gesture—which is
exactly what Appellant claims (albeit using the word ‘matching’ instead of
‘corresponding’).” Ans. 9.
In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Marvit teaches
detecting a gesture sequence wherein the gesture sequence consists of a
motion of the mobile device. Final Act. 15. Marvit teaches that a user
moves a handheld device 10 in the form of a letter ‘O’ and the handheld
device recognizes the ‘O’ motion by measuring a series of acceleration
movements. Marvit para. 137. The Examiner finds that Holz teaches a
gesture recognition module 158, ensures that database 232 contains stored
records corresponding to commands and determines if no corresponding
records are found with respect to an input gesture. Final Act. 26. If no
corresponding records are found, then the user will be prompted to perform
gestures and relate them to mouse functions. Id. (citing Holz para. 46). That
is, the combination of Marvit in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap, and further in
view of Holz, teaches or suggests that when the ‘O’ gesture detected in
Marvit contains no record of commands, the user is prompted to assign tasks
to this detected gesture and update the database.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap and Holz.

Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

15
Claims 6 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Marvit in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap and alternatively,
over Marvit in view of Herron.
Appellant argues that instructing a heater to turn on is not a network
configuration action to grant the heater access to a network, and also does
not require identifying characteristics of the heater. Appeal Br. 25.
Appellant also argues that neither authenticating a spatial signature nor
granting access to a building corresponds to a network configuration action
for granting network access to a network device that is not connected to a
network and does not relate to defining a level of network access to be
granted to the network device. Id. The Examiner finds that by detecting an
instruction to send a specific command to a specific device, Marvit identifies
a “characteristic” of that device, the characteristic being that the device
currently has demand for its services. Ans. 10.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. We do not agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the identifying characteristic can be “the device
currently has demand for its services” because the interpretation does not
meet the claim language. Id. Claims 6 and 17 require that the mobile
device, of claims 1 and 12 respectively, is “identifying characteristics of the
at least one network device.” See claims 6 and 17. The mobile device does
not authorize network access of the heater and define a level of access. The
Examiner cites an authenticator that verifies a mobile commerce (i.e.,
mCommerce) transaction. Final Act. 11. It is unclear how the authenticator
of a mobile commerce transaction relates to a heater.
Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

16
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 17
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of
Tinnakornsrisuphap.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marvit in view of Herron for the
same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5, 7–14, 16, and 18–24
under § 103 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6 and 17 under § 103 are
REVERSED.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

Appeal 2020-000993
Application 14/513,822

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7, 9,
10–13, 17,
18, 20–22
103 Marvit,
Tinnakornsrisuphap
1, 2, 7, 9,
10–13, 18,
20–22
6, 17
1, 2, 5–13,
16–22
103 Marvit, Herron

1, 2, 5, 7–
13, 16, 18–
22
6, 17
3, 14 103 Marvit,
Tinnakornsrisuphap,
Holz
3, 14
3, 14 103 Marvit, Herron,
Holz
3, 14
23 103 Wong,
Tinnakornsrisuphap
23
24 103 Wong,
Tinnakornsrisuphap,
Westerman
24
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 7–
14, 16, 18–
24
6, 17
RESPONSE
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