Ex Parte Jaramillo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201611833506 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111833,506 08/03/2007 72058 7590 08/02/2016 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Narciso B. Jaramillo 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. 58083-346611 (B538) 8000 EXAMINER GURMU, MULUEMEBET ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NARCISO B. JARAMILLO and MARK SHEPHERD Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MER CADER, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-17, 19-27, 29-33, and 35, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems Incorporated. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to Appellants' Specification, the "invention relates generally to using artwork to develop computer applications in ways that preserve the artwork's appearance and/or layout." Spec. ,-r 1.2 More particularly, certain embodiments of the invention "selectively replace potions of (or objects in) the artwork with functional components, such as buttons," but give the replacement components "the appearance of the artwork portions (or objects) that they replace, thus maintaining the appearance of the original artwork." Id. ,-r 5. The claims under consideration include independent claims 1, 20, 25, 30, and 31 as well as dependent claims 3-17, 19, and 35 based on claim 1, claims 21-24 and 32-33 based on claim 20, and claims 26-27 and 29 based on claim 25. 3 2 This decision employs the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the Specification, filed August 3, 2007; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed December 4, 2013; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed July 25, 2014; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 22, 2014; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed December 22, 2014. 3 Although claim 29 depends from claim 28, claim 28 has been cancelled. App. Br. 28 (Claims App.). Initially, claim 28 depended from claim 25. Spec. 29. When cancelling claim 28, Appellants apparently neglected to change claim 29's dependency from claim 28 to claim 25. See Response to Non-Final Action, filed July 26, 2013. For purposes of this decision, we assume that claim 29 depends from claim 25. In the event of continued prosecution, however, the Examiner should consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,-r 2 to the ambiguity in claim 29 due to its dependency on cancelled claim 28. 2 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Representative Claims Independent claims 1, 20, and 25 exemplify the subject matter of the claims under consideration. Claims 1, 20, and 25 read as follows, with italics identifying the limitations at issue: 1. A method comprising: displaying artwork in a design view interface of an application development environment, wherein the artwork was imported into or created in the design view interface; receiving a selection of a selected component type for a component to be added to the design view interface; receiving a selection of a selected fragment of the artwork for replacement with the component of the selected component type, the selected fragment having a fragment location in the artwork displayed in the design view interface; and replacing the selected fragment of the artwork in the design view interface based on the selected fragment being selected for replacement with the component of the selected co111porzerzt type, wherein replacing the selected fragment comprises removing the selected fragment of the artwork and inserting the component at the fragment location in the design view interface, the component having the selected component type, the component comprising an appearance defined based at least in part on appearance of the selected fragment of the artwork. 20. A method comprising: displaying artwork in a design view interface of an application development environment, wherein the artwork was imported into or created in the application development environment, wherein the design view is configured for modifying a graphical interface of an application in a development mode; 3 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 providing a selection tool, the selection tool allowing use of a selector to select a portion of the artwork displayed in the design view interface; receiving a selection of a selected portion of the artwork displayed in the design view interface; and identifYing visible and invisible artwork fragments that occupy the selected portion of the artwork displayed in the design view interface based on the selection received in the design view interface; selecting the identified visible and invisible artwork fragments for use in defining an appearance of a component in developing the application in the application development environment. 25. A method of associating multiple image fragments with an application component for use in developing an application in an application development environment, the method compnsmg: displaying artwork in a design view interface of an application development environment; receiving at least one selection in the design vie\v interface identifying multiple fragments of the artwork as displayed in the design view interface; based on the at least one selection, assigning the multiple fragments of the artwork to a component for inclusion in a graphical interface for the application; and providing a development interface that presents an image fragment list comprising the multiple fragments assigned to the component. App. Br. 23, 26-28 (Claims App.). 4 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 The Prior Art Supporting the Re} ections on Appeal As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Hanson et al. ("Hanson") US 5,956,736 Zeevi et al. ("Zeevi") US 7,320,109 B 1 The Rejections on Appeal Sept. 21, 1999 Jan. 15,2008 (filed Nov. 13, 2000) Claims 1, 3-17, 19-27, 29-33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zeevi in view of Hanson. Final Act. 3-27; App. Br. 7; Ans. 2-8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of the pending claims in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In doing so, we have evaluated only the arguments that Appellants actually make on appeal. Arguments that Appellants could have made but declined to make are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Rejections of Claims 1, 3-16, 19, 30, 31, and 35 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) For independent claims 1, 30, and 31, the Examiner admits that Zeevi "does not explicitly disclose" the limitation "replacing the selected fragment comprises removing the selected fragment of the artwork and inserting the component at the fragment location." Final Act. 4, 20, 23. Instead, the Examiner finds that "Zeevi together with Hanson teaches" the claimed replacement comprising (a) fragment removal and (b) component insertion at the fragment's location. Final Act. 4--5, 20-21, 23-24 (citing Hanson 1:43--49, 12:1-18); Ans. 3 (citing Hanson 11:10-14, 12:1-18). The 5 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Examiner reasons that "[i]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill" to "incorporate the teaching of Hanson into the method of Zeevi" to allow a designer to "easily discern" a document's format "as displayed on an output display device." Final Act. 5-6, 21, 24; see Ans. 7-8. Appellants state that "Hanson discloses an object-oriented HTML based editor for creating web documents .... " App. Br. 9. Appellants note that Hanson describes (1) a page viewer window 600 for displaying a collection of HTML objects corresponding to a web document and (2) an object editor window 610 for viewing and modifying an HTML object that constitutes part of a web document. Id. Appellants state that "Hanson discloses selecting an object in the page viewer window [600] and dragging a representation of the selected object into the object editor window [610]" to permit a designer to "edit the properties of the selected object using the object editor window [610]." Id. at 10. Appellants then argue that Hanson does not teach or suggest the claimed replacement comprising (a) fragment removal and (b) component insertion at the fragment's location. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants contend that Hanson's disclosure of dragging an HTML object's representation to the object editor window 610 does not correspond to removing a fragment and inserting a component at the fragment's location. Id. In addition, Appellants contend that Hanson's disclosure of deleting an HTML object from the collection of HTML objects corresponding to a web document does not teach the claimed component-for-fragment replacement. Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner that Zeevi together with Hanson teaches the claimed component-for-fragment 6 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 replacement. Hanson discloses more than the just deleting an HTML object and dragging an HTML object's representation from one window to another window. According to Appellants' Specification, a "fragment" produces a certain appearance at a particular portion of a computer screen's display. Spec. i-fi-f 12-15. According to Hanson, an HTML object produces a certain appearance at a particular portion (or fragment) of a computer screen's display. Hanson 1 :43-52, Figs. 2-3. Hanson explains that a designer may move a representation of an HTML object from the page viewer window 600 to the object editor window 610 and then change the object's properties, such as the font style. Hanson 12: 1-8, Fig. 6C. If the designer changes the font style, for instance, to produce a revised web document, the edited HTML object replaces the unedited HTML object in the collection of HTML objects corresponding to a web document, and the edited object produces an altered appearance at the portion (or fragment) of the computer screen's display associated with the edited/unedited object. The Specification defines the term "component" broadly, saying, "A 'component' in the present context refers to any piece of an application or its user interface that has its own encapsulated appearance and/or behavior .... " Spec. i-f 12 (emphasis added). So a transfer to a new window followed by HTML object editing and an accompanying appearance alteration of a particular portion or piece of a screen display according to Hanson parallels to the claimed component-for-fragment replacement. That the transfer to a new window involves an HTML object's representation does not detract from Hanson's teaching because an edited HTML object still replaces an unedited HTML object in the collection of HTML objects 7 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 corresponding to a web document. We note that the Specification describes the manipulation of various component and fragment representations, such as the fragment representations associated with an image fragment list. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-132, 40, 42--44. Accordingly, the Examiner interpreted the terms "component" and "fragment" as claimed consistent with Appellants' own Specification. Consequently, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Zeevi together with Hanson teaches the claimed component-for-fragment replacement. As a result, Appellants have not established error in the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 30, and 31 based on Zeevi and Hanson. Hence, we sustain the rejections. Claims 3-16, 19, and 35 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. App. Br. 23-26, 31 (Claims App.). Appellants do not articulate any patentability arguments for these dependent claims beyond the arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-3. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, they stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3-16, 19, and 35. The Rejection of Claim 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claim 1 7 depends from claim 1 and specifies that "the artwork is a multi-layered image," that "the selected fragment comprises a plurality of overlapping layers" having respective fragments, and that "replacing the selected fragment comprises defining a respective appearance for each of a plurality of states of the component based at least in part on a respective one of the plurality of layers having the respective fragment." App. Br. 25-26 (Claims App.). 8 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 The Examiner finds that Zeevi teaches the features specified in claim 17. Final Act. 10-11 (citing Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31); Ans. 6 (citing Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31 ). The portions of Zeevi that the Examiner cites for claim 17 explain that a designer may alter the appearance of a "user interface screen" by "providing multiple different views," for example, by "associating the different views with [the] different channels of [a] multimedia player." Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31. Appellants argue that Zeevi fails to disclose or suggest the features specified in claim 17 and that Hanson does not cure the deficiency. App. Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellants state that Zeevi discloses the generation of a dynamic skin (or file corresponding to the visual appearance of artwork or some other image) where user interface elements or functions are associated with graphic elements based on a correlation between particular colors and particular user interface elements/functions. Id. at 11. Appellants then urge that generating a dynamic skin based on a correspondence between particular colors and particular user interface elements/functions "does not teach or suggest defining an appearance for each state of a component based on a respective fragment that is included in a respective layer of a multi- layer image, as recited in claim 17 ." Id. That argument disregards Zeevi' s disclosure that user interface elements/functions may correspond to particular colors or particular shapes. Zeevi 5:54--6: 15. More specifically, Zeevi explains that (1) "a graphic element may be defined as comprising all of the pixels on the screen of a given color or range of colors" and (2) "a graphic element may also be defined as a group of pixels that form a particular shape .... " Id. at 6: 1-5. 9 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Zeevi further explains that "a correspondence is defined between specified user interface [elements or] functions and graphic elements." Id. at 5:56-59. So Zeevi teaches that dynamic skin generation involves correlating graphic elements ("fragments"), e.g., shapes depicting buttons, with user interface elements/functions ("components"). When arguing the impropriety of the Zeevi-Hanson combination, Appellants admit that Zeevi maps certain shapes or graphic elements to user interface elements/functions. App. Br. 20. Appellants also urge that the disclosure of "multiple different views" associated with a multimedia player's different channels does not involve multi-layered images. Reply Br. 7 (citing Zeevi 4:27-31 ). We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner that Zeevi teaches the features specified in claim 1 7. Zeevi discloses appearance altering by "providing multiple different views of the user interface screen," such as "multiple different views" associated with a multimedia player's different channels. Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31. Different views for different channels correspond to different skins or layers for different channels. For example, when one of the multimedia player's channels operates, the view corresponding to the layer for that channel appears on the display. When that occurs, however, the views corresponding to the layers for the inactive channels would not appear on the display. Each visible and obscured (or invisible) layer includes elements associated with various parts of the multimedia player, such as the buttons 64 and 68. See, e.g., Zeevi 6:60-67, Fig. 3. The Specification instructs that "the term 'state' with respect to a component, refers to an appearance of a component under a specific 10 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 condition .... " Spec. if 5. Thus, the term "state" encompasses the visible and obscured (or invisible) appearance of a particular user interface element for a multimedia player under a condition with one channel active and one or more channels inactive. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 for obviousness based on Zeevi and Hanson. Hence, we sustain the rejection. The Rejections of Claims 20--24, and 32-33 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Independent claim 20 differs from claim 1 by, among other things, including steps for (1) identifying visible and invisible artwork fragments occupying a selected portion of the artwork and (2) selecting the visible and invisible artwork fragments for use in defining a component's appearance. App. Br. 26-27 (Claims App.). Claim 21 depends from claim 20 and includes steps for (1) identifying a first layer with a first visibility attribute that renders the first layer visible and (2) identifying a second layer with a second visibility attribute that renders the second layer invisible. Id. at 21. The Examiner finds that Zeevi discloses identifying visible and invisible artwork fragments and selecting the visible and invisible artwork fragments for use in defining a component's appearance as required by claim 20. Final Act. 12-13, 28 (citing Zeevi 2:30-37, 4:4--7, 4:21-24, 8:66-9:2, 9:22-24); Ans. 4 (citing Zeevi 2:35-37, 8:66-9:2). The Examiner also finds that Zeevi discloses identifying first and second layers with respective visibility attributes that render the respective layers visible and invisible as required by claim 21. Final Act. 14--15 (citing Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31 ); Ans. 7 (citing Zeevi 4:24--25, 4:27-31 ). 11 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Appellants attempt to distinguish claims 20 and 21 from Zeevi on the same grounds as claim 17. App. Br. 13-15, 16-17; Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants contend that generating a dynamic skin based on a correspondence between particular colors and particular user interface elements/functions does not teach or suggest the features recited in claims 20 and 21. App. Br. 13, 16; Reply Br. 4. For claim 21, Appellants contend that the disclosure of "multiple different views" associated with a multimedia player's different channels does not involve multi-layered images. Reply Br. 7 (citing Zeevi 4:27-31 ). We do not consider those contentions any more persuasive for claims 20 and 21 than for claim 17. The analysis discussed above for claim 17 applies to claims 20 and 21. Different views for different channels correspond to different skins or layers for different channels, including visible and obscured (or invisible) layers. See, e.g., Zeevi 4:27-31. Thus, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 for obviousness based on Zeevi and Hanson. Hence, we sustain the rejections. Claims 22-24 and 32-33 depend directly from claim 20. App. Br. 27, 30 (Claims App.). Appellants do not articulate any patentability arguments for these dependent claims beyond the arguments for claim 20. App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 4--5. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, they stand or fall together. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 22-24 and 32-33. The Rejections of Claims 25-27 and 29 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Independent claim 25 differs from claim 1 by, among other things, reciting steps for "receiving at least one selection ... identifying multiple fragments ... [and] assigning the multiple fragments ... to a component ... 12 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 for inclusion in a graphical interface for the application." App. Br. 28 (Claims App.). The Examiner notes that Zeevi does not explicitly disclose "assigning the multiple fragments ... to a component ... for inclusion in a graphical interface for the application" as recited in claim 25. Final Act. 16. The Examiner finds, however, that Hanson discloses claim 25's assigning- multiple-fragments limitation. Id. at 17 (citing Hanson 12: 1-8); Ans. 5---6 (citing Hanson 12:1-8). Appellants assert that the cited portion of Hanson differs from and does not suggest "assigning the multiple fragments ... to a component ... for inclusion in a graphical interface for the application" as required by claim 25. App. Br. 18; see Reply Br. 5---6. The cited portion of Hanson concerns the transfer of an HTML object's representation to a new window followed by HTML object editing and an accompanying appearance alteration of a particular portion or piece of a screen display. Hanson 12: 1-18. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portion of Hanson corresponds to claim 25 's assigning-multiple-fragments limitation. Hence, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 25 based on Zeevi and Hanson. Claims 26-27 and 29 depend directly or indirectly from claim 25.4 App. Br. 28 (Claims App.). Appellants present the same patentability arguments for these dependent claims as for claim 25. App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 5-6. For the reasons discussed regarding claim 25, we do not 4 Footnote 3, supra, discusses claim 29's incorrect dependency. 13 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 sustain the obviousness rejection of these dependent claims based on Zeevi and Hanson. We find, however, that Zeevi discloses using different "skin images" or layers for functional components, such as buttons. Zeevi 7 :49---61. In particular, Zeevi explains that for at least some buttons "the graphic media ... preferably comprise two different skin images for each button: one showing the button in its rest position (unpressed), and another in its depressed position." Id. at 7:49-53. Zeevi further explains that after clicking on the area corresponding to a button, the button's "depressed image ... is substituted for its rest image." Id. at 7:58---61. The area corresponding to a button constitutes a "fragment." Further, the layer with the button in its rest position includes one fragment for the button, while the layer with the button in its depressed position includes another fragment for the button. Thus, we find that Zeevi teaches "assigning the multiple fragments ... to a component ... for inclusion in a graphical interface for the application" as required by claim 25. In addition, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings concerning what Zeevi teaches with respect to claim 25. Final Act. 16. Based on these findings, we determine that the subject matter of claim 25 would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art based on Zeevi. Because Appellants present the same patentability arguments for dependent claims 26-27 and 29 as for claim 25, we determine that the subject matter of these dependent claims would have been obvious based on Zeevi. 14 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 Using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 25-27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zeevi. The Propriety of Combining the Primary and Secondary References Appellants argue that the Examiner wrongly relies on the combination of Zeevi and Hanson to establish obviousness because combining the references would change Zeevi's principle of operation. App. Br. 19. In particular, Appellants assert that Zeevi automatically maps certain shapes or graphic elements to user interface elements or functions, thus eliminating "the need for any special editor or application-specific tools." Id. at 20 (quoting Zeevi 2:31-32). Appellants then assert that combining Hanson's manual HTML object editor with Zeevi would result in an arrangement that Zeevi sought to avoid through automatic mapping. Id. In response, the Examiner finds that Zeevi and Hanson constitute "analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor" and that both references involve "customizing the user interface." Ans. 7-8. We determine that the Examiner properly relies on the combination of Zeevi and Hanson. Zeevi explains that the system automatically maps certain shapes or graphic elements to user interface elements or functions for initialization purposes. Zeevi 2:20-26, 6:49-57, Fig. 2 no. 50. After initialization, a designer interacts with the system to change the appearance of the graphic elements, while the system maintains the initial mapping "regardless of ... [designer] changes in the positions, sizes and shapes of the graphic elements." Id. at 2:26-29, 8:7-15. So Zeevi discloses "customizing the user interface" by manual appearance changes. Hanson similarly 15 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 discloses "customizing the user interface" by manual appearance changes. See, e.g., Hanson 10:1-8, 10:32-34, 12:1-18. "Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures." In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Obviousness does not depend on "whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." Id. Here, as the Examiner properly pointed out, both Zeevi and Hanson involve "customizing the user interface" by manual appearance changes. The references' respective teachings do not conflict. The combined teachings would not change Zeevi' s principle of operation since Zeevi-like Hanson---contemplates designer involvement. Consequently, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of Hanson with Zeevi. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-17, 19-24, 30-33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zeevi and Hanson. We reverse the rejection of claims 25-27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zeevi and Hanson. We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 25-27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Zeevi. 16 Appeal2015-002371 Application 11/833,506 This decision contains a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION, "must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims": ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. ... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record .... 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Further guidance for responding to a new ground of rejection appears in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation