C-Scape Consulting Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14642292 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 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.
14/642,292 03/09/2015 Stephen J. WEISS 2000-2 5189
31825 7590 03/03/2020
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
SENSENIG, SHAUN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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):
jbr@rml-law.com
nyoffice@rml-law.com
wel@rml-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN J. WEISS and JAMES J. FALLON
____________

Appeal 2018-002270
Application 14/642,292
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–5, 7–16, and 18–20, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies C-Scape Consulting Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “display of information and, more
particularly, to systems and methods for providing automated notification
and display of compliance issues and other announcements.” Spec. ¶ 2.
This is directed to systems and methods for Compliance and
Announcement, Display and Notification providing a fast,
efficient, and highly cost effective method of displaying
compliance data and notifications. It is an object to address the
limitations of conventional compliance techniques.

Spec. ¶ 26. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
deploying a labor law compliance information display
and notification system on one or more computing nodes of a
computer network of an employer, wherein the employer
comprises a person or organization that employs individuals;
executing one or more software modules of the labor law
compliance information display and notification system on the
one or more computing nodes to implement an automated
process which automatically accesses and electronically
displays labor law compliance information to enable the
employer lo comply with labor laws, the automated process
comprising:
locating one or more electronic sources of labor
law compliance information;
automatically generating a list of computer links to
one or more of the electronic sources based on
predetermined criteria associated with the labor law
compliance information;
downloading over a network, utilizing the
generated list of links, labor law compliance information
comprising data posting and notification requirements for
a physical location of employees of the employer,
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

3
wherein the labor law compliance information comprises
information the employer is required to publicly post in
said physical. location in compliance with governmental
regulatory requirements;
selecting, automatically, at least a portion of the
labor law compliance information based on the data
posting and notification requirements and said physical
location;
displaying, on an electronic display in said
physical location, the selected portion of the labor law
compliance information;
automatically determining if the labor law
compliance information associated with a generated link
has been updated;
downloading the updated labor law compliance
information; and
replacing, on the electronic display in said physical
location, at least a portion of the currently displayed
labor law compliance information with the updated labor
law compliance information,
wherein the automated process is performed by
executing the one or more software modules using one or
more processors.

References and Rejections2

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
References
1–5, 7–
16, 18–
20

101 not applicable

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated June
5, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated July 5, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
(3) Examiner’s Answer dated November 19, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated January 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

4
1, 2, 3,
7, 10, 20
103 OSHA (retrieved from the wayback machine as of
4/5/2008), LaborLawPoster (retrieved from the wayback
machine as of 2/6/2007), Bokish (US 7,269,417 B1;
September 11, 2007)

4, 5, 11,
12, 14
103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Official Notice
8 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Middelfart (US
2003/0229622 A1; December 11, 2003)

9 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish
13 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Knight
(US 2006/0004584 A1; January 5, 2006)

15, 18 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Schoemann (US
2003/0144989 A1; July 31, 2003)

16 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Schoemann, Official
Notice

19 103 OSHA, LaborLawPoster, Bokish, Schoemann, Gross (US
2004/0143569 A1; July 22, 2004)

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. To the extent consistent
with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

5
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the 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) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., 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.
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

6
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
Supreme 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 Supreme 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 principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (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 (citation 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. (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.
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

7
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised
guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT
SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).3 Under the Guidance, 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 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look 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. (Step 2B.)
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Guidance, claim 1 (with
emphases) recites:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
deploying a labor law compliance information display
and notification system on one or more computing nodes of a
computer network of an employer, wherein the employer
comprises a person or organization that employs individuals;

3 The Guidance was updated in October 2019.

Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

8
executing one or more software modules of the labor law
compliance information display and notification system on the
one or more computing nodes to implement an automated
process which automatically accesses and electronically
displays labor law compliance information to enable the
employer lo comply with labor laws, the automated process
comprising:
locating one or more electronic sources of labor law
compliance information;
automatically generating a list of computer links to one
or more of the electronic sources based on predetermined
criteria associated with the labor law compliance information;
downloading over a network, utilizing the generated list
of links, labor law compliance information comprising data
posting and notification requirements for a physical location of
employees of the employer, wherein the labor law compliance
information comprises information the employer is required to
publicly post in said physical location in compliance with
governmental regulatory requirements;
selecting, automatically, at least a portion of the labor
law compliance information based on the data posting and
notification requirements and said physical location;
displaying, on an electronic display in said physical
location, the selected portion of the labor law compliance
information;
automatically determining if the labor law compliance
information associated with a generated link has been updated;
downloading the updated labor law compliance
information; and
replacing, on the electronic display in said physical
location, at least a portion of the currently displayed labor law
compliance information with the updated labor law compliance
information,
wherein the automated process is performed by executing
the one or more software modules using one or more
processors.4

4 We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and group the remaining
claims accordingly under 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“[T]he failure of
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

9

All of the italicized limitations are associated with following rules.
For example, “deploying a labor law compliance information display and
notification system on . . . of an employer, wherein the employer comprises
a person or organization that employs individuals” facilitates following rules
by implementing the compliance information system. Likewise, “executing
one or more . . . modules of the labor law compliance information display
and notification system on . . . to implement a[] . . . process which . . .
accesses and . . . displays labor law compliance information to enable the
employer lo comply with labor laws” enables following rules by providing
access to information. Similarly, “locating one or more . . . sources of labor
law compliance information,” “generating a list of . . . links to one or more
of the . . . sources based on predetermined criteria associated with the labor
law compliance information,” and “downloading . . . utilizing the generated
list of links, labor law compliance information comprising data posting and
notification requirements for a physical location of employees of the
employer, wherein the labor law compliance information comprises
information the employer is required to publicly post in said physical.
location in compliance with governmental regulatory requirements”
facilitate following rules by locating and obtaining compliance information.
Further, “selecting . . . at least a portion of the labor law compliance
information based on the data posting and notification requirements and said

appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of each grouped claim separately.”).

Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

10
physical location” and “displaying, on . . . in said physical location, the
selected portion of the labor law compliance information” facilitate
following rules by displaying the relevant compliance information. In
addition, “determining if the labor law compliance information associated
with a generated link has been updated,” “downloading the updated labor
law compliance information; and “replacing, on . . . in said physical location,
at least a portion of the currently displayed labor law compliance
information with the updated labor law compliance information” facilitate
following rules by providing updated compliance information.
Our determination is supported by the Specification, which describes
the need to follow labor laws, and a new method to fulfill that need:
Labor laws have been enacted in nearly all countries of the world.
. . . .
Spec. ¶ 3.
Non-compliance to posting up-to-date information can bring a
wide variety of penalties including: citations, fines, civil
monetary penalties and damages, and loss of government
contracts, dependent upon the employer, state, and nature of the
offense. Multiple violations may incur incrementally larger
penalties.
Spec. ¶ 8.
This is directed to systems and methods for Compliance and
Announcement, Display and Notification providing a fast,
efficient, and highly cost effective method of displaying
compliance data and notifications. It is an object to address the
limitations of conventional compliance techniques.
Spec. ¶ 26.
Because following rules belongs to the category of managing
relationships or interactions between people (Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong 1 (Groupings of Abstract Ideas)), we conclude claim 1 recites
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

11
managing relationships or interactions between people, which is one
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the
Guidance, and thus an abstract idea.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, contrary to
Appellant’s assertions (Appeal Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 2–6), Appellant
has not shown claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, Appellant
has not shown the additional elements “one or more computing nodes
of a computer network, “software,” “automated,” “automatically,”
“electronically,” “electronic,” “a network,” “electronic display,” and
“the automated process is performed by executing the one or more
software modules using one or more processors” integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Appellant’s argument about “novel . . . solutions” to “enable an
employer to comply with labor laws” (Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5) is
unpersuasive because “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). “[U]nder the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly
discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot
rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for
patent eligibility . . . .” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369,
1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea—not “technological
improvements,” as Appellant asserts (Appeal Br. 13).
Appellant’s reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appeal Br. 14–15) is unpersuasive. In
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

12
McRO, the Court determines:
Claim 1 of the ’576 patent is focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of
rules of a particular type. . . . It is the incorporation of the
claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the]
existing technological process” by allowing the automation of
further tasks.
Further, the automation goes beyond merely “organizing
[existing] information into a new form” or carrying out a
fundamental economic practice. . . . The claimed process uses
a combined order of specific rules that renders information into
a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired
results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–15 (emphases added).
Unlike the claims of McRO, claim 1 is not directed to “a specific
asserted improvement in computer animation” or similar improvements. Id.
at 1314. Nor is claim 1 directed to using “a combined order of specific rules
that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied
to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters”
or similar functions. Id. at 1315. Therefore, BASCOM is inapplicable here.
Further, Appellant’s assertion regarding pre-emption (Reply Br. 5–6)
is unpersuasive, because
[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
patent eligibility . . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only
to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo
framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are
fully addressed and made moot.

Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–
63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

13
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract”).
Regarding the “improvements over . . . manual searching and
accessing of . . . information” and “automated process” argued by Appellant
(Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6), our reviewing court has declared:
While the claimed system and method certainly purport to
accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687
F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”).
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphases added).
Applying this reasoning to claim 1, we similarly find any purported
“improvement” comes from the capabilities of general-purpose computers
(such as the recited “computing nodes of a computer network, “software,”
“network,” “electronic display”), rather than the claimed steps or functions.
Similar to the claims of FairWarning, claim 1 is “not directed to an
improvement in the way computers operate” and “the focus of the claims is
not on . . . an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” FairWarning, 839
F.3d at 1095.
As a result, we conclude claim 1 does not recite additional elements
that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See
Guidance, Step 2A, Prong 2.
Turning to Step 2B of the Guidance, Appellant does not persuasively
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

14
argue any specific limitation is not well-understood, routine, or conventional
in the field. Nor does Appellant persuasively argue the Examiner erred in
that aspect. In particular, Appellant’s argument about “specific types of
information” (Appeal Br. 15) is unpersuasive, because Appellant has not
persuasively explained why processing known compliance information
renders the claims patent eligible under Alice.5
Further, Appellant’s argument about the strength of the prior art
rejections (Appeal Br. 15) is unpersuasive, because a prior art rejection is
determined under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, which are different statutory
requirements. As the Supreme Court emphasizes: “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any
element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance
in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89
(emphasis added). Our reviewing court further guides that “[e]ligibility and
novelty are separate inquiries.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
As a result, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred with
respect to the Guidance’s Step 2B analysis. See Guidance, Step 2B.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
corresponding dependent claims 2–5, 7–16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about

5 Appellant also cites “specific functions” (Appeal Br. 15), but does not
persuasively explain why they are not well-understood, routine, or
conventional in the field.
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

15
those claims.

Obviousness
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections are deficient. See
Appeal Br. 15–22; Reply Br. 8–9. In particular, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not adequately mapped the following limitations, as
the Examiner has not provided specific findings about the limitations
(Appeal Br. 15–22; Reply Br. 8–9):
automatically determining if the labor law compliance
information associated with a generated link has been updated;
downloading the updated labor law compliance
information; and
replacing, on the electronic display in said physical
location, at least a portion of the currently displayed labor law
compliance information with the updated labor law compliance
information,
as recited in independent claim 1.
determining an effective date of the downloaded labor
law compliance information; and
withholding from displaying the labor law compliance
information on the electronic display in said physical location
until a specific date, wherein the specific date is determined
based on the effective date of the received labor law compliance
information,
as recited in independent claim 9.
storing the selected portion of the downloaded labor law
compliance information in an information database, wherein
storing the selected portion of the downloaded labor law
compliance information comprises:
identifying a portion of the downloaded labor law
compliance information that is currently valid, wherein
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

16
the remaining received labor law compliance information
is not currently valid; and
storing only the currently valid labor law
compliance information in the information database,

as recited in independent claim 15.
downloading, utilizing the generated list of links, labor
law compliance information associated with a plurality of
different physical locations of employees of the employer,
wherein the labor law compliance information comprises
information the employer is required to publicly post in the
plurality of different physical locations in compliance with
governmental regulatory requirements,

as recited in independent claim 20 (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejections, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 20.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, and 19. Although the Examiner cites
additional references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has
not shown the additional references overcomes the deficiency discussed
above in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 20.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–16, and
18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–16, and
18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

17
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–
5, 7–16, and 18–20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–16,
18–20
101 Subject Matter
Eligibility
1–5, 7–16,
18–20

1, 2, 3, 7,
10, 20
103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish
1, 2, 3, 7,
10, 20
4, 5, 11, 12,
14
103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish, Official
Notice
4, 5, 11, 12,
14
8 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish,
Middelfart
8
9 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish
9
13 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish, Knight
13
15, 18 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish,
Schoemann
15, 18
16 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish,
16
Appeal 2019-002270
Application 14/642,292

18
Schoemann,
Official Notice
19 103 OSHA,
LaborLawPoster,
Bokish,
Schoemann, Gross
19
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–16,
18–20

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED