Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14561005 - (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.
14/561,005 12/04/2014 Howard D. Simms JR. 115.0195USU1
(13-0398US01
5548
62058 7590 03/03/2020
PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C.
Suite 900
121 South 8th Street
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2481
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
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):
docketing@pdsdlaw.com
kds@pdsdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOWARD D. SIMMS JR., VIKTORIA A. AVERINA,
and MAYA BHAT

Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–2, 6–12, 14–15, and 17–22. See Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cardiac Pacemakers,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a multi-patient data visualization system
and method. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for displaying patient data, comprising:
a processing device; and
a display and user input device interfaced to the
processing device;
wherein the processing device is configured to:
receive patient data from an external data source, wherein
the patient data includes a list of patients and a plurality of
clinical variables associated with each patient;
receive a selection of a user-selected clinical variable via
the user input device, wherein the user-selected clinical variable
is selected from among the plurality of clinical variables;
display an axis representing values for the user-selected
clinical variable;
display, in spatial relation to the axis, a representation of
the value of the user selected clinical variable associated with
each patient, wherein the representation of the value of the user-
selected clinical variable associated with each patient is a
scatter plot of data points in a space defined by at least two
axes, with each data point representing a patient and having
coordinates that correspond to the value of the user selected
clinical variable associated with that patient;
display tracks for one or more data points that visually
represent how the value of the user-selected clinical variable
has changed for the corresponding patient, wherein the track
extends from a previous value to a subsequent value;
receive, based on the spatial relation of the values to the
axis, via the user input device, a selection of a range of values
for the user-selected clinical variable, wherein a subset of
patients have associated clinical variables falling within the
selected range; and
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

3
in response to receiving the selected range, identify the
subset of patients as a cohort and display detailed data for each
of the patients in the cohort.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6–12, 14, 15, and 17–22 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 3.
The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 14, 15 and 17–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the Answer. Ans. 7.
OPINION
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. 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.
Alice, 573 U.S. 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
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

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 waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
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.”).
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

5
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 (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. (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.
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)
(“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.
Under the 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

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 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.p
df).
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

6
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
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.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. .

Abstract Idea
For the following reasons, we conclude the claims recite a mental
process, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity
identified in the Revised Guidance, and thus, an abstract idea. See Revised

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 Revised Guidance - §III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. 54–
55.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

7
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing mental process” as one of the
“enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”).
Appellant addresses the claims as a group, and we select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(iv). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea because it is directed to a mental process, which is one of certain
methods of organizing human activity, as discussed below. The steps of
claim 1 recite steps of receiving “patient data from an external data source,
wherein the patient data includes a list of patients and a plurality of clinical
variables associated with each patient,” receiving “a selection of a user-
selected clinical variable . . . wherein the user-selected clinical variable is
selected from among the plurality of clinical variables,” displaying certain
representations and data points, and receiving “a selection of a range of
values for the user-selected clinical variable, wherein a subset of patients
have associated clinical variables falling within the selected range,” and “in
response to receiving the selected range, identify[ing] the subset of patients
as a cohort,” and displaying detailed data for each of the patients in the
cohort.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and (3) mental processes.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea grouping listed in the 2019 Eligibility
Guidance: “mental processes.” See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52,
53 (listing “[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

8
“enumerated groupings of abstract ideas” (footnote omitted)). The guidance
explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in
their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic
computer component performs the acts. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is
nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed
by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”), quoted in Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs.
Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-
implemented method for “‘anonymous loan shopping’” was an abstract idea
because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”); quoted in
2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
Claim 1 is similar to claims that courts have concluded recite a mental
process. See, e.g., Univ. of Fla. Res. Found. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d
1363, 1367 (2019) (method and system for integrating physiologic data from
at least one bedside machine ineligible; “On its face, the ’251 patent seeks to
automate ‘pen and paper methodologies’ to conserve human resources and
minimize errors.”). Like the claims in the patent in University of Florida
Research Foundation, the method recited in claim 1 executes steps that
people can perform in their minds or by using pen and paper.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

9
A person can perform the above-quoted steps of claim 1 by using his
or her mind (or pen and paper) in the claimed manner. For example, a person
can “receive patient data from an external data source, wherein the patient
data includes a list of patients and a plurality of clinical variables associated
with each patient,” using pen and paper. A person can “receive a selection of
a user-selected clinical variable . . . wherein the user-selected clinical
variable is selected from among the plurality of clinical variables,” via pen
and paper. A person can represent “an exist representing values for the user-
selected clinical variable” using pen and paper. A person can represent, via
pen and paper, “in spatial relation to the axis, a representation of the value of
the user-selected clinical variable associated with each patient, wherein the
representation of the value of the user-selected clinical variable associated
with each patient is a scatter plot of data points in a space defined by at least
two axes, with each data point representing a patient and having coordinates
that correspond to the value of the user-selected clinical variable associated
with that patient.” A person can represent, via pen and paper, “tracks for one
or more data points that visually represent how the value of the user-selected
clinical variable has changed for the corresponding patient, wherein the track
extends from a previous value to a subsequent value.” A person can “receive
a selection of a range of values for the user-selected clinical variable,
wherein a subset of patients have associated clinical variables falling within
the selected range,” using pen and paper. A person can, “in response to
receiving the selected range, identify the subset of patients as a cohort,”
using his or her mind or pen and paper. And, a person can, using pen and
paper, present “detailed data for each of the patients in the cohort.”
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a mental process, and thus an abstract idea.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

10
In accordance with the Revised Guidance, and looking to MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h), we determine that the additional elements of
claim 1, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate a
judicial exception, in this case the abstract idea of a mental process, into a
practical application. Claim 1 is directed to the implementation of the
abstract idea on generic computer servers and devices. The claimed
“processing device,” “display device,” and “user input device” are recited at
a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the process
of claim 1. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is
not a practical application of the abstract idea. See, e.g., Figs. 1A-1B; Spec.
p. 2 l. 16 – p. 3 l. 11 (“The processing device may be, for example, a mobile
device (e.g., tablet, smart phone, portable computer) or other type of
computer (e.g., a medical device programmer) that communicates wirelessly
or via direct connection with a data source 150.”).
Appellant also argues that the claims are eligible as increasing the
efficiency of computers, analogous to the claims Core Wireless Licensing
S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal Br. at 10–11. In Core Wireless, the claimed invention specified
particular technological functionality in the form of “an application
summary that can be reached directly from [a] menu” such that the summary
window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-
launched state.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63. The court in Data
Engine Technologies characterized the claimed invention in Core Wireless
as not “merely directed to the abstract idea of indexing information,” but
instead providing “an improved user interface for electronic devices” such
that the claim was “directed to ‘an improvement in the functioning of
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

11
computers.’” Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
In Data Engine Technologies, the court addressed a set of claims
directed to a specific method of navigating three-dimensional spreadsheets
through the use of tabs. Id. at 1008–09. The inventive tabs permitted easy
access to spreadsheet workspaces that previously required a user to “search
through complex menu systems” and “memorize frequently needed
commands.” Id. at 1008. Certain claims “require[d] at least one user-settable
identifying character to label the notebook tab and describes navigating
through the various spreadsheet pages . . . that are identified by their tabs.”
Id. The court found the claims to require a “specific interface and
implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets
using techniques unique to computers.” Id. at 1009. The court distinguished
the claimed invention from one that would merely recite “a generic method
of labeling and organizing” spreadsheet data. Id. at 1008–09.
The court in Data Engine further addressed claims that recited
“associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable page identifier”
without “the specific implementation of a notebook tab interface.” Id. at
1012. The court held that these were claims not limited to the “specific
technical solution and improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality”
set forth in the eligible tab claims and were, thus, found ineligible. Id.
Claim 1 in the present application does not recite an interface such as
was found to provide eligibility in Core Wireless. The claim recites “a
scatter plot of data points in a space defined by at least two axes,” as well as
“tracks for one or more data points that visually represent how the value” of
a variable has changed for the patient. Claim 1 does not set forth any
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

12
particular improvement of an interface itself, and is therefore more akin to
the ineligible claims in Data Engine than to the eligible claims in Core
Wireless.
To the extent that Appellant alleges improvement to computer
efficiency (Appeal Br. 11), such alleged improvement is not to the
technological implementation set forth in claim 1, but instead to the decision
making that is part of the abstract idea (e.g., identifying a subset of patients).
The claimed displaying of detailed data for each patient does not reduce the
memory required, or improve the operation of a computer system. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the claimed invention can identify a subset
of patients faster than before, any speed increase comes from the capabilities
of the generic computer components—not the recited process itself. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing 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.”)); see
also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F. App’x 1012,
1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“Though the claims purport to
accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have
held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary
capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘do[ ] not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’”). Like the claims in
FairWarning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

13
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application because the claim limitations do not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Stated differently, the
claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology,
(2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer
components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a
different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine that claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea,
we next consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” The
Examiner determined that claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept
because the additional elements in the claim do not amount to “significantly
more” than an abstract idea. See Final Act. 4–5.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination in this regard. The
additional elements recited in claim 1 include a “processing device,”
“display device,” and “user input device.” The claim recites the “processing
device,” “display device,” and “user input device” at a high level of
generality, and the written description indicates that the elements are
generic. See, e.g., Figs. 1A-1B; Spec. p. 2 l. 16 – p. 3 l. 11 (“The processing
device may be, for example, a mobile device (e.g., tablet, smart phone,
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

14
portable computer) or other type of computer (e.g., a medical device
programmer) that communicates wirelessly or via direct connection with a
data source 150.”).
Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does
not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or in combination, do not amount to
“significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
To the extent Appellant contends that the recited limitations, including
those detailed above, add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide
an inventive concept (see Appeal Br. 9–11), these limitations are not
additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the
abstract idea as noted previously. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56
(instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated in
Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific limitations
that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or (2)
simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Appellant contends various elements recited in the claim provide the
necessary inventive concept. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant also argues that the
Examiner must provide support for elements that are dismissed as “well-
understood, routine, or conventional.” Appeal Br.12–14. Appellant refers to
the Berkheimer memorandum.4 Id. Yet, these elements form part of the

4 Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

15
recited abstract ideas and thus are not “additional elements” that “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to
refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim
beyond the identified judicial exception.” (Emphasis added)).
Rather, the recited “processing device,” “display device,” and “user
input device” are the additional recited elements whose generic computing
functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual
Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368 (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile
keyed to a user identity), database, and communication medium are generic
computer elements); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an
“interface,” “network,” and “database” are generic computer components
that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); 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.”). Accord Ans. 14–17
(Concluding that the claims’ additional generic computer components are
commercially available.); see also Spec. Figs. 1A-1B; Spec. p. 2 l. 16 – p. 3
l. 11 (“The processing device may be, for example, a mobile device (e.g.,
tablet, smart phone, portable computer) or other type of computer (e.g., a

HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018) available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF.
Appeal 2019-004227
Application 14/561,005

16
medical device programmer) that communicates wirelessly or via direct
connection with a data source 150.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–12,
14, 15, 17–
22
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 6–12,
14, 15, 17–
22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED