AKZO NOBEL COATINGS INTERNATIONAL B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2020

15023048 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2020)

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.
15/023,048 03/18/2016 Debabrata PANJA 16-1183-WO-US 5743
141081 7590 07/31/2020
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP/AkzoNobel
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
FERNSTROM, KURT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DEBABRATA PANJA
____________________

Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM, and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
UNDER 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b).

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Akzo Nobel Coatings International B.V.,
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and are
reproduced below:
1. A process for preparing a color chart, the process comprising
arranging a plurality of colors or colored objects in a defined
sequence so that each color or colored object has at least one
neighboring color or colored object, comprising the steps of
a) assigning all colors or colored objects a position in an
at least two-dimensional color space,
b) assigning all neighboring colors or colored objects a
color difference value corresponding to the length of a
vector connecting the neighboring colors in the color
space,
c) assigning a direction to every vector in the color space
connecting two neighboring colors or colored objects,
d) arranging the sequence of colors or colored objects in
such a way that an overall sum of
i. all color difference values over the sequence and
ii. all direction difference values of two consecutive
vectors is minimized,
and wherein a weight factor x is assigned to a sum of all color
difference values and a weight factory is assigned to a sum of all
direction difference values of two consecutive vectors prior to
the minimization of the overall sum, and wherein at least one of
x and y is not zero, and
displaying the color arrangement on a chart.

11. A color chart, wherein the comprising a plurality of colors is
arranged in a sequence according to the process of claim 1.

Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Hooper (US 4,996,461, issued Oct. 30, 1990).
OPINION
Claims 1–10 and 12–20--§ 101
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of pending claims 1–
10 and 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter, is in error. Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues
the claims as a group, and we take claim 1 as representative. Claims 2–10
and 12–20 stand or fall with claim 1.
We address the rejection by applying the USPTO’s Revised Guidance,
informed by our governing case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

4
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we
first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

5
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

6
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance — Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

7
C. ANALYSIS
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 is a process claim, reciting a number of steps, and thus recites
one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether claim 1 is directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites steps involving
arranging a plurality of colors in a defined sequence, including the assigning
of colors or colored objects to positions, assigning color difference values to
neighboring colors or colored objects, assigning directions to vectors
connecting neighboring colors, such that the arrangement minimizes the
sums of color difference values and vector direction difference values, which
steps are capable of being performed in entirely within a person’s mind.
Final Act. 2–3. As such, according to the Examiner, claim 1 involves
various mental steps, which constitute an abstract idea. Ans. 3. The
Examiner additionally takes the position that the claimed step of displaying
the color arrangement is merely a display of the results of the abstract mental
process that does not confer subject matter eligibility to claim 1. Id. at 4.
We note that claim 1 further may be regarded as including steps
involving mathematical concepts, such as assigning values to color
differences, assigning values to vector direction differences, and, in
summing and determining a minimization of those differences, applying
weight factors to each sum. The 2019 Revised Guidance instructs that
mental processes and mathematical concepts are two forms of an abstract
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

8
idea, which is one of the categories of judicial exceptions. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appellant argues to the effect that the entire combination of steps is a
practical exception that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception,
but does not contest that at least all of the steps with the exception of the
displaying step are capable of being performed in the human mind, and, as
such, involve mental processes. See, e.g., Reply Br. 2. Indeed, claim 1 does
not require even a generic processor to perform these steps as a limitation.
Appellant’s above arguments are more in the nature of asserting that,
even though the claims involve an abstract idea, other limitations are present
that are directed to a non-conventional application of that abstract idea. We
thus find that the claims recite a judicial exception in the form of an abstract
idea. Appellant’s arguments are more appropriately addressed under the
second prong of Step 2A below.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Since claim 1 recites a judicial exception, as we conclude above, we
proceed to the “practical application” inquiry in Step 2A(ii), in which we
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
In other words, we evaluate claim 1 to determine whether it not only recites
a judicial exception, but also whether it is directed to that judicial exception,
or, alternatively, is directed to some technological implementation or
application of, the judicial exception.
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

9
Appellant argues:
(i) the presently claimed process, like that in McRO,4 uses a
combined order of specific rules that renders information into a
specific format that is then used and applied to create desired
results, for example, an arrangement of a plurality of colors or
colored objects in a defined sequence, and a chart displaying the
arrangement (Appeal Br. 3);
(ii) the method provides a commercially useful and valuable way
of arranging colors, in a natural flow that is aesthetically
pleasing; eliminates poor reproducibility resulting from
subjective perception of test panel members; and allows for
elimination of duplicate colors in documenting colors for car
repairs (id.);
(iii) the method is not merely the abstract idea of ordering colors,
but is directed to a specific, ordered, inventive combination of
steps that produce a sequence of colors that can be used to select
the most suitable or best matching paint color for vehicle repair,
which provides an improved technological result in conventional
industry practice, like that in McRO (id. at 4);
(iv) the method is a practical application of a judicial exception
that does not preclude others from arranging colors in an
aesthetically pleasing and/or useful way, not unlike the new and
useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocytes in Rapid
Litigation Management,5 underlying which was a discovery of a
natural phenomenon that the technique exploited (id. at 5);
(v) the method steps are used in conjunction with a color chart,
which is a particular manufacture integral to the claim, and
transform the chart into a different thing, namely an improved
color chart produced without subjective visual perception, with
the assigning and arranging steps being linked to a particular
technological environment-a chart for matching colors in the
automobile repair industry (Reply Br. 2);

4 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016)
5 Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

10
(vi) the process provides a technical solution to a technical
problem by accommodating random color difference values as
compared to prior art processes that required the color
differences to differ by integral multiples of a preselected color
difference and definition of a reference color (id. at 3–4);
(vii) the claimed process differs from that in Electric Power
Group,6 in that the color chart produced is not merely ancillary
to data collection and analysis, it is the main purpose of the
method, providing functionality useful in the correct matching of
paint colors for repairing automobiles, the chart itself being part
of this industrial process (id. at 4).
The analysis under this prong begins with identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception. The only element in claim 1 that is not part of the judicial
exception is “displaying the color arrangement on a chart.” We now
evaluate this additional element, taking into account Appellant’s above
arguments, to determine whether it integrates the exception into a practical
application.
As to argument (i) above, we do not find claim 1 on appeal to be
similar to the claims at issue in McRO, in that the combined order of specific
rules used to create a color chart does not, as did the combined order of
specific rules in McRO, give rise to a practical application, which, in McRO,
was in the form of a technological improvement that allowed computers to
produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animation that previously could only be produced by human animators.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. Claim 1 does not even require the presence of a
computer, and even if it did, the step of displaying the color arrangement
determined by the specific rules in the claim on a color chart would simply

6 Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

11
be a visual output of the results of performing the mental steps or abstract
idea.
As to argument (ii) above, to the extent relevant to this analysis,
claim 1 includes no limitations indicative of a commercial use involved in
the process—it simply recites rules for ordering colors into a defined
sequence, and displaying the ordered colors on a color chart. Even if there
were indicia present in the claim that suggest possible use, for example, in
automobile body repair, that does not change the fact that the claim calls for
a series of what can be mental steps, followed by displaying the results of
the steps. Claim 1 additionally does not preclude the use of subjective
perception of test panel members and the attendant alleged poor
reproducibility, as argued.
As to argument (iii), even assuming that the sequence of colors
generated and displayed on a color chart could be used to select the most
suitable or best matching paint color for vehicle repair, which is argued to
provide an improved technological result in conventional industry practice,
the process of claim 1 is devoid of any steps specifically tying the creation
of a color chart to any such technological result or industry practice.
As to argument (iv), claim 1 is not similar to the claim or claims at
issue in Rapid Litigation Management, in that the claims involved there
recited process steps that were not possible to carry out as a series of mental
steps with merely a display of the results, as in present claim 1. That present
claim 1 does not preclude other techniques or rule sets for arranging colors is
of no moment. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

12
optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce
setting do not make them any less abstract.”).
As to argument (v), we again note that the process steps actually
present in claim 1 are not linked in the claim to any steps involving any
particular technological environment, whether it be matching colors in the
automobile repair industry or otherwise. Additionally, the claimed color
chart is not necessarily a particular manufacture, in that claim 1
encompasses a color chart in the form of an electronic color display screen.
See claim 7 (depending from claim 1 and reciting as alternatives a printed
color chart and a color chart on an electronic display screen). Claim 1 also
does not evidence any transformation of a color chart into a different state.
As to argument (vi), as noted previously, the limitations actually
present in claim 1 do not evidence a particular technical solution to a
particular technical problem. The alleged differences between the claimed
process steps and the prior art, assuming they exist, reside in the series of
mental steps, i.e., are part of the abstract idea itself.
As to argument (vii), in the absence of limitations in claim 1
specifically implementing the abstract idea in the form of mental steps in
some overriding process that itself is not a series of mental steps (such as,
broadly, a paint color matching process), we view the color chart as indeed
being merely ancillary to performing the steps recited in claim 1 with a
selected plurality of colors or colored objects. Claim 1 does not differ
materially from those in Electric Power Group, where it was held that
“merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis,
and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

13
information-based category of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d
at 1355.
As such, we do not find that the element in claim 1 that is not part of
the judicial exception, i.e., “displaying the color arrangement on a chart,”
results in an integration of the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept”/“Significantly More”?
The next aspect of the inquiry is whether claim 1 provides an
inventive concept because the additional elements beyond the recited
judicial exception provide significantly more than that judicial exception.
As discussed in the preceding section, aside from the limitations
discussed above as reciting aspects of abstract ideas, the claims recite only
displaying the color arrangement developed using the abstract idea on a
chart. Appellant does not, and generally cannot, take the position that
displaying an arrangement of colors in a color chart, is somehow not well-
known, routine, and conventional. Further, as to the particular arrangements
of colors that may result from performing the abstract/mental steps involved
in generating the arrangements possibly differing from arrangements
generated by other techniques, “[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than
[the] ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, analysis of claim 1, as a whole, with its limitations
considered both individually and as an ordered combination, confirms the
Examiner’s conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea without
significantly more. The rejection of claim 1 as being directed to patent-
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

14
ineligible subject matter is sustained. Claims 2–10 and 12–20 fall with
claim 1.

Claim 11--Anticipation by Hooper
The Examiner finds that Hooper discloses a color chart comprising a
plurality of colors arranged in a sequence, and that any potential difference
in the particular arrangement of colors is not to be given patentable weight,
in that the colors are printed matter and nonfunctional descriptive material
having no new and nonobvious relationship to an underlying substrate.
Final Act. 5–6 (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The
Examiner takes the position that an underlying substrate of a color chart
merely serves as a support for displaying the arrangement of colors, and that
there is no functional relationship between the two. Id. at 6.
Appellant does not address the issue of nonfunctional descriptive
material in the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 5–6. Instead, Appellant asserts that
the Examiner has not pointed to evidence that any of the Hooper color charts
would necessarily be identical to color charts produced by the process of
claim 1, which is invoked in claim 11. Id. at 5. Appellant maintains that
“[t]he methods are different and, so, the resulting arrangement will be
different.” Id. at 6.
Only for the first time in the Reply Brief does Appellant present any
argument directed to an alleged functional relationship between the colors
appearing on the color chart and the substrate portion of the color chart.
Reply Br. 5. As Appellant does not show good cause as to why the
Examiner’s position regarding nonfunctional descriptive material appearing
in the Final Action was not argued in the Appeal Brief, nor that the Reply
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

15
Brief arguments are responsive to an argument raised for the first time in the
Examiner’s Answer, we do not consider the arguments for the purposes of
the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Because the Examiner’s position regarding the colors appearing on
whatever substrate makes up the claimed color chart being nonfunctional
descriptive material having no new or nonobvious functional relationship to
the substrate is on solid legal footing, the rejection of claim 11 as being
anticipated by Hooper is sustained.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION--Claim 11--35 U.S.C. § 101
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea,
without significantly more. Claim 11 recites a color chart for which a
plurality of colors is arranged in a sequence according to the process of
claim 1. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix.
Claim 11 includes the process steps of claim 1, discussed above as
being a series of mental steps, and, as such, recites a judicial exception in the
form of an abstract idea. As above, the only element that is not a part of the
judicial exception is a color chart presenting a display of the plurality of
colors arranged in the sequence determined by the series of mental steps.
The color chart may be in at least the two forms disclosed in the
Specification, i.e., an electronic color display screen and a printed color
chart. Spec. 8:12–15. It is possible that a printed color chart and an
electronic display screen might be regarded as articles of manufacture,
however, that does not materially alter the analysis presented above that
results in the determination that the claim is directed to the judicial
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

16
exception in the form of an abstract idea. Cf. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1351 and n.1 (representative claim was method claim, other claims covered
by analysis recited performance monitoring system).
As above, the recitation of a color chart does not rise to the level of
integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does it
provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Our analysis set forth
above applies equally to the ineligibility of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as
being directed to ineligible subject matter, is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Hooper is affirmed.
Claim 11 is rejected, in a New Ground of Rejection, under 35
U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to ineligible subject matter.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–10, 12–
20
101 Eligibility 1–10, 12–
20

11 102(a)(1) Hooper 11
11 101 Eligibility 11
Overall
Outcome
1–20 11

This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
Appeal 2020-000233
Application 15/023,048

17
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, 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 prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is
binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion
of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the 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).

AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)