SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2021003481 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

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. 15/623,118 06/14/2017 Lei Huang 8880-100965-01 1994 106592 7590 02/28/2022 Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (SAP) 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER WHITAKER, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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): docketing@klarquist.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEI HUANG, TERRY GU, TING WANG, WENCHANG ZHANG, LYN ZHAO, LISHI SHEN, and HAIBIN YUAN Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1−6, 9−16, 19−21, and 23−25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 2 We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to “the needs or problems of an organization. Such organizations may include businesses, schools, interest- based user groups, clubs, charities, or governments.” (Spec. para. 1). Claim 11, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 11. A method comprising: hosting, on a cloud computing platform, a social media integration service for an internal human resources system of an organization; displaying, on an external social media platform, an external user interface of the social media integration service to a first user, the external user interface comprising user interface elements for importing or inputting a resume to the social media integration service; receiving the resume via the external user interface; displaying an internal user interface of the social media integration service to a second user, the second user being an internal user of the internal human resources system of the organization, the internal user interface comprising user interface elements for mapping data from the imported or input resume via the social media integration service to a required data format of the internal human resources system of the organization; receiving input from the second user via the internal user interface; and mapping data from the resume to the required data format of the internal human resources system of the organization, the mapping being based at least in part on the input. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 3 Name Reference Date Bonmassar US 2013/0290208 A1 Oct. 31, 2013 Chevalier US 2015/0127565 A1 May 7, 2015 Damarious Page “How to Attach a Cover Letter to a Resume When You Have to Use an Employer Website” https://work.chron.com/attach-cover- letter-resume-use-employer-website-3680.html REJECTION Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonmassar, Chevalier, and Page. OPINION We agree with Appellant that the cited prior art combination does not suggest the “mapping” limitation as recited in all the independent claims (1, 11, and 21). See e.g., claim 11 (“mapping data … to a required data format”). Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner (Final Act. 14) cites paragraphs 35 and 47-49 of Bonmassar as evidence that mapping data to a required format as claimed is disclosed in the prior art. Final Act. 8. Bonmassar’s paragraph 35 discusses an “interface that allows an outside entity, such as a job recruiter, to access the ranking data and/or the filtered secondary recruitment data about candidates.” Paragraphs. 47-49 discuss data filtering “to identify certain types of data that may be of interest to a user of the system. … The identified information that satisfies the search parameters can then be output … .” The claims call for mapping data to a required “data format.” According to the Specification, “format” refers to document type. See. e.g., para. 61 (“resumes of different format (e.g., DOC, HTML and MHT, etc.)”). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 4 In light of the Specification, the phrase “data format” reasonably broadly describes a certain document type. Since the claim phrase “data format” refers to document type and the cited disclosures refer to informational type, Bonmassar does not disclose the “mapping” limitations recited in the claims. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness over the cited art combination has not been made out in the first instance. The rejection is not sustained. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION Claims 1−6, 9−16, 19−21, and 23−25 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more. We select process claim 11 as the representative claim. Apparatus claim 1 and manufacture claim 21 parallel claim 11. Introduction 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” In that regard, claim 11 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. See also id. at 53-54 (“[C]onsider[] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.”). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 5 However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject matter, there is a question of patent eligibility. Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Alice step one - the “directed to” inquiry: According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 6 Claim Analysis3 We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.4,5,6 Claim 11 is a method involving two interfaces tied to a generic social media integration service for an internal human resources system of an organization (see Spec., e.g., paras. 2 and 30): an external interface associated with a first user and an internal interface associated with a second user. The external interface “compris[es] user interface elements for importing or inputting a resume to the social media integration service.” This is exemplified in the Specification by common local job boards. Para. 46. The internal interface “compris[es] user interface elements for 3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.” Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that ‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). 5 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others. 6 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, footnote 14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 7 mapping data from the imported or input resume via the social media integration service to a required data format of the internal human resources system of the organization.” The Specification describes the “mapping” element as a software module. Para. 47. According to the claim, the second user receives input (e.g., the resume) at the internal interface and then the inputted information is “mapp[ed] … to the required data format.” According to the Specification, Social networking services (e.g., online social media platform) are now widely used by people to communicate and build social networks or social relations with other people. Consideration is now being given to incorporating social media networking services or social media technology in ERP [enterprise resource planning] systems that address the needs and problems of an organization. Paras. 3-4. The invention may provide for an internal HR system of an organization that includes or is coupled to a social media recruiting system. Para. 32. The system may include a “desktop UI screen” to “allow [an] HR user to configure their input data (e.g., data received over the social media) to be mapped to the required data format of the internal HR system … .” Para. 65 (illustrated in Fig. 8). Given the method as claimed and in light of the Specification’s description of the invention, claim 11 is directed to a scheme for mapping a received resume to a format required for further processing. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 8 The Abstract Idea7 Above, where we reproduce claim 11, we identify in italics the limitations that recite an abstract idea.8 Based on our claim analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations describe a scheme for mapping a received resume to a format required for further processing. Processing a resume is a commercial interaction. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.9 7 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. 8 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. 9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates subject matter grouping “(b)”: “(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 9 Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument) We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our characterization of what claim 11 is directed to. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was made in the Final Rejection, mailed Oct. 13, 2019. In response, the claims were amended, largely as they now appear on appeal. Amendment, filed Jan. 22, 2020 (“Amendment”). Accompanying the Amendment, Appellant made these remarks: [T]he claims are amended herein to more positively recite various features and emphasize their practical application. ... [C]laim 1 is similar to the hypothetical eligible claim 1 of Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas from the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In the analysis of claim 1 of Example 42, at Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim is characterized as “a method that allows for users to access patients’ medical records and receive updated patient information in real time from other user,” and is found to recite the abstract idea of organizing human activity. However, at Step 2A, Prong 2, the analysis concludes that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. In particular, the analysis asserts as follows: 10 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 10 The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea). Similarly, amended claim 1 recites a combination of additional elements that provide a practical application and a specific improvement over prior art systems. In amended claim 1, a social media integration service comprises an interface layer comprising an internal user interface and an external user interface. Input is received from a first user via the external user interface to initiate a job application, and a resume is received via the external user interface. Data from the resume is mapped to a required data format of an internal human resources system of an organization, the mapping being based at least in part on input received from a second user via the internal user interface, the second user being an internal user of the internal human resources system of the organization. Data from the resume in the required data format is then imported to a database of the internal human resources system of the organization. Accordingly, the system of amended claim 1 recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing resume data to be imported to a database of an internal human resources system of an organization in a required data format of the internal human resources system. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 11 As we understand it, Appellant is arguing that the claimed mapping provides for a technical improvement. Appellant analogizes the claimed subject matter to that of patent-eligible Example 4211 associated with the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. The analogy is inapposite. Example 42 is directed to conversion in real time. The instant claims do not require conversion, only “mapping.” The method as claimed describes, in very general terms, mapping a received resume to a format required for further processing. The method as claimed is not focused on improving technology. It may resolve deciding which resume still must be converted in order to be further processed but that is insufficient to show the claimed subject matter yields a technical improvement. Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”). We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim analysis, claim 11 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a scheme for mapping a received resume to a format required for further processing. We see no specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities recited in the claim. The claim provides no additional structural details that would distinguish any device required to be employed to practice the claimed 11 Example 42 was at issue in cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 12 subject matter as claimed, such as the recited interfaces from its generic counterparts.12 With respect to the “displaying,” “receiving,” “displaying,” “receiving,” and, “mapping” steps, the Specification attributes no special meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. In our view, these are common computer processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) . . . . For example, claim 1 recites “sending a first set of electronic messages over a network to devices,” the devices being “programmed to communicate,” storing test results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using a computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.], 765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). 12 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the abstract idea identified by the district court.”). Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 13 Id. at 1363. We do not find Appellant’s contention that the claim presents a technical improvement, as reasonably broadly construed, persuasive as to error in our characterization of what the claim is directed to because the method as claimed fails to adequately show it. We are unable to point to any claim language suggestive of an improvement in technology. An argument that such an improvement exists is alone insufficient. See generally In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965); In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019 (CCPA 1973); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather than showing that the claimed steps describe a technical improvement, Appellant points to result-based functional language that is without any particular means for achieving any purported technological improvement. Appellant argues that the claimed subject matter “allow[s] resume data to be imported to a database of an internal human resources system of an organization in a required data format of the internal human resources system.” Amendment. This argument refers to independent claims 1 and 21 and dependent claim 13 which require importing the resume into a database in the required format. But even as to these claims, there is no improvement in technology. The database is generic and it is generally known that one can input information into a database in a “required data format.” Without more by way of technical detail about how the import is done, arguing that the claimed subject matter “allow[s] resume data to be imported to a database … ” simply points to result-based functional language, an aspiration. By so broadly defining the steps, that is, by setting out what they are aspiring to accomplish without any technical details for achieving them, let Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 14 alone any purported technological improvement, these steps, and the claim as a whole, are in effect presenting the invention in purely result-based functional language, strengthening our determination under Alice step one that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Cf. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim 1 recites a method for routing information using result-based functional language. The claim requires the functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”). See also Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020): The claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media similarly failed to concretely capture any improvement in computer functionality. In Two-Way Media, the claims recited a method of transmitting packets of information over a communications network comprising: converting information into streams of digital packets; routing the streams to users; controlling the routing; and monitoring the reception of packets by the users. 874 F.3d at 1334. Two-Way Media argued that the claims solved data transmission problems, including load management and bottlenecking, but the claimed method was not directed to those improvements. Id. at 1336-37. We therefore held the claims ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional language” without the means for achieving any purported technological improvement. Id. at 1337. Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 15 We have considered Appellant’s arguments that had challenged the Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find them unpersuasive as to the present claims on appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports determining that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice step two - Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?13 Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). In that regard, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations of, for example, internal and external interfaces, merely add common vehicles to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Specification shows the recited elements, individually and in the context of the scheme as claimed, were conventional at the time of filing. Spec., e.g., para. 74 (“general and special purpose microprocessors”). It is intrinsic evidence that the elements as claimed were conventional. In citing the Specification, we have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure 13 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).” Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 16 Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19, 2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)). Accordingly, there is sufficient factual support for the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed elements, such as the interfaces, individually or in the combination as claimed. Under Alice step two, claim 11 does not include an element or combination of elements circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to transform the concept into a patent-eligible application. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments on the record and find them unpersuasive. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016): We have considered all of LendingTree’s remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we find claim 11, and claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-16, 19-21, 23-25 for the same reasons, patent ineligible. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-21, and 23-25 is reversed. Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19-21, and 23-25 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 17 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) / Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 101 Eligibility 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 103(a) Bonmassar, Chevalier, Page 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 Overall Outcome 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 1-6, 9- 16, 19- 21, 23- 25 NEW GROUND This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE 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 proceeding 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. . . . Appeal 2021-003481 Application 15/623,118 18 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)