Ex Parte Jaramillo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11833506 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

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