Ex Parte Wilson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13608844 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
13/608,844 09/10/2012 Eric Karl Wilson A4057 2098
112877 7590 03/31/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Trimble Navigation Limited
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
CASS, JEAN PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3669
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 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@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC KARL WILSON,
JOHN W. PEAKE, and STEPHAN PLEINES
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
Technology Center 3600
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants, Eric Karl Wilson et al.,1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Trimble Navigation Limited as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an agricultural autopilot. Claims 1,7, 12,
and 16 are the independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An agricultural autopilot comprising:
position, velocity and heading sensors;
steering actuators and drive wheel torque actuators; and,
a microprocessor and memory that:
i. estimate a vehicle’s state based on data provided
by the sensors and a digital filter, and,
ii. guide the vehicle via the steering actuators and
drive wheel torque actuators toward a pre-programmed
path stored in the memory.
REFERENCES
In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the
following prior art:
Wilton US 7,071,642 B2 July 4, 2006
Macdonald US 7,835,832 B2 Nov. 16,2010
Reimers US 2002/0189222 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
Hauser US 2008/0277188 A1 Nov. 13, 2008
Jones US 2009/0014223 A1 Jan. 15,2009
Collins US 2011/0196565 A1 Aug. 11,2011
Tokimasa US 2011/0196579 A1 Aug. 11,2011
Hennessy US 2012/0179322 A1 July 12, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5, 7—9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa.
2. Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Jones.
2
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
3. Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Wilton.
4. Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Reimers.
5. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Hauser.
6. Claims 10, 11 or 12, 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Macdonald.
Appellants seek our review of these rejections.
ANALYSIS
The Rejections of Independent Claim 1 and Its Dependent Claims 2—6
Claims 1 and 5
Appellants argue claims 1 and 5 as a group. Appeal Br. 13—16. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claim 5 stands or falls with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa. The Examiner finds
that Collins discloses an agricultural autopilot comprising position, velocity
and heading sensors, steering actuators, a microprocessor and memory that
estimates a vehicle's state based on data provided by the sensors and a digital
filter and guides the vehicle via the steering actuators toward a pre­
programmed path stored in the memory, but Collins does not disclose drive
wheel actuators that guide the vehicle via the drive wheel torque actuators
toward a pre-programmed path stored in the memory. Final Act. 9—12
(citing Collins, e.g., 18, 19, claim 19, Figs. 1, 3); Ans. 8—9.
3
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
The Examiner further finds that Hennessy discloses “a controller [60]
and an actuator controller [66] used to guide the vehicle along a path [plan
55] stored in memory” (Final Act. 3 (citing Hennessy Fig. 4); Ans. 8), and
drive wheel torque actuators that guide the vehicle toward a pre­
programmed path stored in the memory. Final Act. 12—15 (citing Hennessy,
Fig. 4, H 80—87). The Examiner emphasizes that Hennessy discloses:
The tramming controller 60 includes three hierarchical sub­
controllers: a waypoint controller 62, a rate controller 64, and an
actuator controller 66. The tramming controller is designed such
that the actuator controller regulates the speed of the two vehicle
tracks: the rate controller regulates the vehicle velocity and the
turn rate: and the waypoint controller maintains the tracking of
planned trajectories. Due to the skid steering nature of the drill
rig vehicle, velocity and yaw rate are chosen as the two main
control parameters because they directly relate to the vehicle
driving commands.
Final Act. 14 (citing Hennessy 1 87); see also Ans. 5 (“As shown in FIG. 4
of Hennessey, the tramming controller 60 is connected to an interface and
controls the vehicle drive wheel torque actuators 84 of the vehicle 60 and the
drive wheel torque actuators are a part of the tramming controller. . . . The
drive wheel torque actuators are part of, and are controlled by the controller
60.”).
Citing to paragraphs 1—5 of Hennessy for support, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to combine Collins with
Hennessey “since Hennessey discloses that by providing a tramming
controller that can includes a waypoint, rate and actuator controller accuracy
of a path may be determined to accomplish the drilling or working goal of
the autonomous working vehicle with great accuracy.” Final Act. 14—15
(citing Hennessy ^fl[ 1—5); see also Ans. 5 (“[I]t would have been obvious to
4
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
combine Hennessey and the tramming controller that controls the drive
wheel torque actuators of the vehicle into the agricultural vehicle of Collins
since Hennessey teaches that by having waypoint information an accurate
control of the drive wheel torque actuators may be provided for to track the
path of the vehicle. This tracking of a path may be achieved with great
accuracy. This is accomplished by driving each of the torque devices using
a tramming controller that controls the drive wheel torque actuators
independently to achieve the path that is desired.”), and 8—9. Hennessy
describes the importance of autonomous vehicles, the desirability of
automation technology to achieve higher efficiency and safety, and the
importance and desirability of mobility control, localization, navigation,
planning, and communication to navigate large autonomous vehicles in a
precise, pre-planned, and regulated path. Hennessy 1—5.
The Examiner finds that Tokimasa discloses “guiding the vehicle via
the steering and the drive wheel torque actuators toward a preprogrammed
path stored in memory.” Final Act. 5—9 (citing Tokimasa 25—34, 38, Fig.
1); see also Ans. 4—8. The Examiner determines that it would have been
obvious to “combine Collins, Hennessey and Tokimasa ... in that Tokimasa
discloses that by using a combination of braking, steering and torque control
the burdens on steering and braking manually by a driver may be alleviated
and a more precise vehicle motion according to a desired path may be
achieved.” Final Act. 9.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous for
several reasons. First, Appellants argue that “Collins does not describe
applying differential torque to the drive wheels. In fact, Collins offers no
hint that poor steerable wheel traction could ever be a problem for autopilot
5
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
performance.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellants are improperly attacking the
teachings of Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa individually. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that Hennessy and Tokimasa, not
Collins, disclose the “drive wheel torque actuator” limitations. See, e.g.,
Final Act. 12—15 (Hennessy), 5—9 (Tokimasa). Appellants do not address
the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, do not show
Examiner error.
Second, Appellants argue that the “Examiner errs by asserting that
Hennessey discloses drive wheel torque actuators.” Appeal Br. 16.
According to Appellants,
Hennessey describes a tracked, skid-steer, surface drilling rig for
mining. See, e.g., Hennessey paragraphs 70—74. Hennessey’s
vehicle does not have drive wheels; it has tracks (“left and right
tracked conveyances 22, 24” [Hennessey paragraph 72]).
Lacking drive wheels, Hennessey's drilling rig, of course also
lacks drive wheel torque actuators.
Appeal Br. 16. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Hennessy discloses that
the embodiments for its “path planning and navigation systems” and
“tramming controller” (i.e., drive wheel torque actuator) are described with
respect to a tracked vehicle but are equally applicable to “wheeled vehicles.”
See, e.g., Hennessy, ^fl[ 70, 176. In view of this explicit disclosure,
Appellants do not explain why Hennessy’s disclosure is inapplicable to
wheeled vehicles. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Third, Appellants argue that “Tokimasa describes a camera that is
used to judge whether or not a car has drifted out of a lane on a highway as
6
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
part of a lane departure control system,” and “does not describe an autopilot,
nor a pre-programmed path for a vehicle to follow.” Appeal Br. 14.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner relies on Collins’ disclosure
of an autopilot. Final Act. 12; see In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). In addition, Tokimasa discloses a pre­
programmed path in terms of a “traveling line” and stored map data. See,
e.g., Final Act. 7 (citing Tokimasa 130). According to Tokimasa, a control
block “processes the photographed image to recognize a traveling line of the
vehicle,” and Tokimasa controls the vehicle so that it runs along this pre­
programmed traveling line. Tokimasa 130. Further, Tokimasa’s “navigation
cooperation assisting control block detects a road sharply curved in front of
the vehicle by using map data stored in a navigation device (not shown), and
requests the control apparatus 10 to perform a navigation cooperation
assisting control for a vehicle turning motion.” Id. (emphasis added).
Finally, even if Tokimasa does not disclose a pre-programmed path,
Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that Hennessy discloses
the “pre-programmed path” limitation (see, e.g., Final Act. 12; Ans. 8), and
Appellants’ statement that Collins discloses a pre-programmed path (Appeal
Br. 14). Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated by the
Examiner, and, thus, do not show Examiner error.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the Examiner does not provide a
“motivation or articulated reasoning based on the references to combine
elements as claimed in claim 1.” Id. Appellants address only part of the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning:
7
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine Collins, Hennessey and Tokimasa at the time the
invention was made in that Tokimasa discloses that by using a
combination of braking, steering and torque control the burdens
on steering and braking manually by a driver may be alleviated
and a more precise vehicle motion according to a desired path
may be achieved.
Appeal Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 9). Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining Collins and Hennessy (Final
Act. 14—15 (citing Hennessy H 1—5) and Tokimasa (Ans. 4—5). Hennessy
describes the importance of autonomous vehicles, the desirability of
automation technology to achieve higher efficiency and safety, and the
importance and desirability of mobility control, localization, navigation,
planning, and communication to navigate large autonomous vehicles in a
precise, pre-planned, and regulated path. Hennessy 1—5. This is equally
applicable to the combination of Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Fifth, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to
combine Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa is based on “impermissible
hindsight obtained from reading Applicant’s disclosure.” Appeal Br. 14.
However, as discussed above, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is
supported by explicit teachings in the cited prior art (e.g., Hennessy ]Hf 1—5).
Appellants do not identity any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that
was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise
within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, thereby
obviating Appellants’ assertion of hindsight. See In re McLaughlin, 443
F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of error.
8
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
For the above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claim 5
falls with claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa,
and Jones. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is
erroneous for the same reasons presented with respect to the rejection of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 20. As discussed above, the rejection of claim 1 is
sustained.
Appellants also argue that the “Examiner has not made any statement
at all as to why it might have been obvious to combine Collins, Hennessey,
Tokimasa and Jones.” Appeal Br. 20 (citing Final Act. 32). Contrary to
Appellants’ argument, in addition to the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
for claim 1, the Examiner, for claim 2, reasons that it would have been
obvious to “combine Jones with Hennessey and Collins ... in that Jones
discloses that by using compactly arranged electric motors dedicated to each
of the drive wheels and having brakes improved traction control may result.”
Final Act. 32 (citing Jones 1—3). Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning, and, thus, do not show Examiner error.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claim 2 over Collins,
Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Jones is sustained.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa,
9
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
and Wilton. Appellants contend that the “arguments presented above for
claim 1 are relevant and apply to claim 3,” and “the addition of Wilton does
not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that are noted above.”2
Appeal Br. 21—22.
As none of Appellants’ arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 1 are convincing, as discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy,
Tokimasa, and Wilton.
Claim 4
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Reimers. Appellants
contend that the “arguments presented above for claim 1 are relevant and
apply to claim 4,” and “the addition of Reimers does not cure the
deficiencies in the rejection of claim 4 [sic, 1] that are noted above.”3 4
Appeal Br. 22—23.
2 Appellants also argue that the “Examiner errs by asserting ‘Wilton
discloses ‘3. The autopilot of Claim 1 wherein the drive wheel torque
actuators include individual drive wheel electric motors.’ (Final rejection, p.
33.) In fact Wilton makes no mention of an autopilot.” Appeal Br. 22. We
understand that the Examiner finds that Collins discloses an autopilot (e.g.,
Final Act. 9), and the Examiner’s recitation of the beginning phrase of claim
3 — “The autopilot of Claim 1 ” — is a typographical error.
3 Appellants also argue that the “Examiner errs by asserting ‘Reimers
discloses the autopilot of Claim 1 wherein the drive wheel torque actuators
include individual drive wheel hydraulic motors.’ (Final rejection, p. 34.) In
fact Reimers makes no mention of an autopilot.” Appeal Br. 23. We
understand that the Examiner finds that Collins discloses an autopilot (e.g.,
Final Act. 9), and the Examiner’s recitation of the beginning phrase of claim
4 — “the autopilot of Claim 1 ” — is a typographical error.
10
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
As none of Appellants’ arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 1 are convincing, as discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy,
Tokimasa, and Reimers.
Claim 6
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, Tokimasa, and Hauser. Appellants
contend that the “arguments presented above for claim 1 are relevant and
apply to claim 6,” and “the addition of Hauser does not cure the deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 6 [sic, 1] that are noted above.”4 Appeal Br. 24.
As none of Appellants’ arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies
in the rejection of claim 1 are convincing, as discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy,
Tokimasa, and Hauser.
4 Appellants also argue that the “Examiner errs by asserting ‘Hauser
discloses ‘6. The autopilot of Claim 1 wherein the microprocessor
implements a P-l-D feedback loop that controls the drive wheel torque
actuators drive wheel torque actuators [include individual drive wheel
electric motors].’ (Final rejection, p. 35.) In fact Hauser makes no mention
of an autopilot.” Appeal Br. 24. We understand that the Examiner finds that
Collins discloses an autopilot (e.g., Final Act. 9), and the Examiner’s
recitation of the beginning phrase of claim 6 — “6. The autopilot of Claim
1 ” — is a typographical error.
11
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
The Rejections of Independent Claim 7 and Its Dependent Claim 8—11
Claims 8—11 depend from independent claim 7. Claim 7 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins,
Hennessy, and Tokimasa.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
7 is erroneous because it does not present any articulated reasoning for
combining Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa. Appeal Br. 17. Appellants are
correct. If the Examiner is relying on the articulated reasoning presented for
claim 1, then the Examiner must explicitly adopt that reasoning. The
rejections of claim 7 and its dependent claims 8—11 are not sustained.
The Rejections of Independent Claims 12 and Its Dependent Claims 13—15
Claims 13—15 depend from independent claim 12. Claim 12 is
directed to an autopilot including a microprocessor and memory that:
ii. operate the steering actuators and the drive wheel torque
actuators to achieve an effective steering angle equal to the
desired steering angle when the desired steering angle is less than
or equal to an actual steering angle mechanical limit, and,
iii. operate the steering actuators and the drive wheel
torque actuators to achieve an effective steering angle greater
than the actual steering angle when the desired steering angle is
greater than the actual steering angle mechanical limit.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa. The Examiner finds, in
part, that Tokimasa and Hennessy disclose the above limitations including
an “effective steering angle,” “desired steering angle,” and “actual steering
angle mechanical limit.” See, e.g., Final Act. 23—28 (Tokimasa), 29-32
(Hennessy); Ans. 10-12 (Tokimasa).
12
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are erroneous because
the “various steering angles and limit of claim 12 are neither described nor
suggested by any combination of Collins, Hennessey and Tokimasa.”
Appeal Br. 18.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 132, “the examiner bears the initial burden, on
review of prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case
of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Section 132 “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents
the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for
rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted).
In the Final Action, the Examiner’s findings that Tokimasa and
Hennessy disclose the “effective steering angle,” “desired steering angle,”
and “actual steering angle mechanical limit” limitations in claim 12 are
supported by broad citations to multiple paragraphs in the references with
little explanation as to how the references disclose the contested claim
limitations. Final Act. 22—32; Ans. 10—11. It is possible that Tokimasa and
Hennessy disclose the recited “angles” and “mechanical limit,” but the
Examiner’s verbatim repetition —without explanation — of numerous
paragraphs from the references do not identify where the recited “angles”
and “mechanical limit” are found in the references. Id. Other than
referencing the claim language, the Examiner’s findings do not even use the
terms “angle” or “mechanical limit.” The Examiner’s findings simply are so
uninformative that it prevents one from recognizing and seeking to counter
the specific grounds for rejection. This Board and, more importantly,
Appellants should not be required to sift through the prior art to locate
13
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
support for the Examiner’s rejections and/or speculate as to teachings upon
which the Examiner relies. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for
truffles buried in briefs.”).
In an alternative Rejection 6, claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, and Macdonald.
This rejection suffers from the same deficiencies as the rejection over
Collins, Hennessy, and Tokimasa. The Examiner does not identify where
the recited “angles” and “mechanical limit” are found in the references.
Final Act. 35—43. Other than referencing the claim language, the
Examiner’s findings do not use the terms “angle” or “mechanical limit.”
The Examiner’s findings simply are so uninformative that it prevents one
from recognizing and seeking to counter the specific grounds for rejection.
For these reasons, the rejections of claim 12 and its dependent claims
13—15 are sustained.
The Rejection of Claim 16
Like claim 12, independent claim 16 recites a “desired steering
angle,” an “effective steering angle,” and an “actual steering angle
mechanical limit.” Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collins, Hennessy, and Macdonald.
Like the Examiner’s findings in the rejection of claim 12, the
Examiner’s findings related to claim 16 are supported by broad citations to
multiple paragraphs in the references with little explanation as to how the
references disclose the contested claim limitations. Final Act. 48—55. It is
possible that Macdonald and Hennessy disclose the recited “angles” and
14
Appeal 2015-007028
Application 13/608,844
“mechanical limit,” but the Examiner’s verbatim repetition—without
explanation — of numerous paragraphs from the references do not identify
where the recited “angles” and “mechanical limit” are found in the
references. Id. Other than referencing the claim language, the Examiner’s
findings do not use the terms “angle” or “mechanical limit.” The
Examiner’s findings simply are so uninformative that it prevents one from
recognizing and seeking to counter the specific grounds for rejection. Thus,
the rejection of claim 16 is not sustained.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6 are
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 7—16 are REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15