Ex Parte Badros et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

11026415 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
11/026,415 12/30/2004 Gregory Joseph Badros Google-86
(GP-344-00-US)
6491
82402 7590 08/29/2012
Straub & Pokotylo
788 Shrewsbury Avenue
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
ALVAREZ, RAQUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte, GREGORY JOSEPH BADROS,
ROBERT J. STETS, and LUCY ZHANG 1
____________________

Appeal 2011-002578
Application 11/026,415
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before, KEVIN F. TURNER, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Google Inc. is the real party in interest.
2 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed June 1, 2010) and Reply Br. (“Reply Br.,” filed September 27, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 30, 2010).
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosure relates to a method and system for improving
advertisement approval which automates the process of approving ads for
circulation/syndication, and/or to recheck ads that have already been
approved. (Spec. ¶ [0021].)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for improving advertisement
approval, the method comprising:
a) accepting an advertisement, by an automated ad policy
checking component of a computer system including at least
one computer, for use with an online ad serving system;
b) automatically checking, by the automated ad policy checking
component and without manual human intervention, the
advertisement for compliance with one or more policies of the
online ad serving system; and
c) determining, by the automated ad policy checking component
and without manual human intervention, whether or not to
approve the advertisement using results of the automatic
checking.
(App. Br., Claims Appendix 1.)

PRIOR ART REJECTION
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Camporeale 2004/0073484 A1 Apr. 15, 2004
Nuri Korean Pat. App. 2003-0044189 Jun. 9, 2003

The Examiner rejected claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri. (Ans. 3-9.)
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

3
ISSUES3
1. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest the
steps of “automatically checking, by the automated ad policy checking
component and without manual human intervention, an advertisement for
compliance with one or more policies of the online ad serving system” and
“determining, by the automated ad policy checking component and without
manual human intervention, whether or not to approve the advertisement
using results of the automatic checking,” as generally recited by claims 1
and 28, such that, it renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 17-19,
21, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
2. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest that
“if it was determined to approve the advertisement, then further scheduling,
by the automated ad policy checking component, a follow up check of the
advertisement,” as generally recited by claims 3 and 6, such that, it renders
obvious the subject matter of claims 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
3. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest that
“hints for making the ad comply with one or more violated policies,” as
recited by claim 9 and “a suggestion for avoiding a violation of the policy,”
as recited by claim 20, such that, it renders obvious the subject matter of
claims 9-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
4. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest the
step of “determining whether to exempt the violation,” as recited by claim

3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments that Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

4
12, such that, it renders obvious the subject matter of claims 12-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a)?
5. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest
“wherein each of the one or more policies further includes (c) a link,
executable by an ad delivery system customer service representative but not
by an advertiser, to further information about the policy,” as recited by
dependent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
6. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest
“wherein each of the one or more policies further includes (c) machine
executable code for checking an advertisement to determine whether or not
the policy is violated,” as recited by dependent claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a)?
7. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest if it
was determined not to approve the advertisement, then permitting, at least
initially and by the automated ad policy checking component, the
advertisement to be served by the ad serving system during a grace period,
as generally recited by dependent claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)?
8. Does the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teach or suggest
“forwarding the ad for manual inspection by an ad delivery system customer
service representative” when a determination is made to not approve the
advertisement, as generally recited by dependent claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a)?

Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ Specification generally describes that “whitelists” are
“one or more violation exemptions.” (¶ [0010].)
2. Camporeale is directed to a system for electronic display
advertising which inspects advertisements for content acceptability. (Abs.)
3. Camporeale describes that its system insures advertisement content
acceptability by manually reviewing the content using the system operator’s
content review staff. (¶ [0044].)
4. Camporeale describes that the system operator inspects
advertisements for compliance with established rules “to avoid inclusion of
such objectionable content as profanity, obscenity, offensive language,
libelous statements, statements against the interest of the host venue, etc.”
(¶¶ [0012]; [0044]; see also Fig. 3.)
5. Camporeale describes that “[i]f the advertisement is not approved
in step 3-12, a rejection is issued in step 3-13, and the advertiser may revise
the advertisement in step 3-15, and resubmit in step 3-09 to be reinspected in
step 3-12.” (¶ [0044].)
6. Nuri is directed to a method and system for automatically
displaying targeted Internet advertising on webpages based upon a set of
rules and conditions. (Pp. 1-3; 10.)
7. Nuri generally describes that its system identifies and compares the
content of a web page displayed on a user’s web browser to rules or
conditions stored in a condition table. Based on this comparison, Nuri’s
system displays a targeted advertisement to the user based upon satisfaction
of the one or more conditions in the condition table. (Pp. 3-6.)
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

6
8. Nuri describes that the conditions may be based on specific words,
web page color, and/or time of day. (P. 6.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Camporeale and Nuri.
Independent claims 1 and 28
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest the steps of “automatically checking, by the automated ad
policy checking component and without manual human intervention, an
advertisement for compliance with one or more policies of the online ad
serving system” and “determining, by the automated ad policy checking
component and without manual human intervention, whether or not to
approve the advertisement using results of the automatic checking,” as
generally recited by claims 1 and 28. (App. Br. 12; 18.) Specifically,
Appellants assert that Camporeale is directed to a manual review of
advertisements and the addition of Nuri does not cure this deficiency since
Nuri does not teach or suggest automatically checking advertisements for
compliance with policies, but rather, only automates an evaluation of web
documents. (App. Br. 16-18.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri renders obvious the
“improve[ed] advertising approval” method and system of independent
claims 1 and 28. In making this determination, we find that Camporeale
teaches an electronic advertising system which insures advertisement
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

7
content acceptability by inspecting advertisements for compliance with a set
of established rules. (FF 2-4.) While we acknowledge that Camporeale’s
system is system-operator dependent (FF 3), we nevertheless find that
Camporeale teaches a system which accepts an advertisement, checks the
advertisement for compliance with one or more policies, and determines
whether or not to approve the advertisement based upon its compliance.
(FF 2, 4.)
However, to address Camporeale’s deficiency, that is to address
Appellants’ “automated” and “without manual human intervention”
limitations, the Examiner relies on the Internet advertising system of Nuri.
(Ans. 4.) Nuri teaches a system which automatically displays targeted
Internet advertising on webpages, based upon a set of rules and conditions.
(FF 6.) Specifically, Nuri teaches a system which automatically identifies
and compares the content of a web page to a set of rules or conditions stored
in a condition table. (FF 6, 8.) Based upon satisfaction of one or more these
conditions, Nuri’s system displays a targeted advertisement. (FF 7.)
Based upon these teachings, the Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Camporeale’s
electronic advertising system with the teachings of Nuri’s system which
automatically checks web pages for compliance with advertisements “in
order to automate the well-known method of Camporeale and avoid human
errors in the system.” Additionally, the Examiner points out that automating
a known process is obvious relying on In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA
1958). (Ans. 9.)
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

8
We agree with the Examiner and find “[i]t is well settled that it is not
‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace
manual activity which has accomplished the same result.” Venner, 262 F.2d
at 95 (citing In re Rundell, 48 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1931)). In other words,
since Camporeale teaches a system which accepts an advertisement, checks
the advertisement for compliance with one or more policies, and determines
whether or not to approve the advertisement based upon its compliance, (FF
2-4), we find that automation of these activities into computerized,
automated components, as presently claimed, is obvious, especially in view
of the automatic rule-based advertising system taught by Nuri. Specifically,
we find that an ordinary skilled artisan would understand and appreciate that
Camporeale’s rules could be readily applied to the condition table used by
Nuri’s rule-based system (FF 3, 4, 7, 8), and doing so would be no more than
automating a known manual method, accomplishing the same result, and as
such, no more than combination of elements familiar, according to known
methods yielding a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale
and Nuri.

Dependent claims 2, 17-19, 21, and 25
Appellants do not separately argue claims 2, 17-19, 21, and 25, which
depend from independent claims 1, and so we sustain the rejection of these
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

9
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri
for the same reasons we found as to claims 1 and 28 supra.

Dependent claims 3-8
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest “wherein if it was determined to approve the advertisement,
then further scheduling, by the automated ad policy checking component, a
follow up check of the advertisement,” as recited by claim 3. (App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 2-4.) Dependent claim 6 recites a substantially similar limitation.
(App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 4-6.)
In response, the Examiner finds that “Camporeale clearly teaches in
paragraph 0044 inspection and reinspection/follow-up check to determine if
the advertisement comply with the proper language/content (Figure 3, step
3-12)” [sic]. (Ans. 10.) We cannot agree.
While we agree with the Examiner that Camporeale discloses a
follow-up check, we cannot agree with the Examiner that this follow-up
occurs in situations where an advertisement is approved. (FF 5.) To the
contrary, we find that Camporeale’s system only teaches performing “a
follow up check of the advertisements” in situations where an initial
determination is made not to approve the advertisement.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri.
For these same reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4 and 5, which depend upon claim 3 and claims 7 and 8, which
depend upon claim 6.
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

10
Dependent claim 9-11 and 20
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest “if it was determined not to approve the advertisement, then
providing, by the automated ad policy checking component, hints for
making the ad comply with one or more violated policies,” as recited by
claim 9. (App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 6-8.) Similarly, dependent claim 20
recites “wherein each of the one or more policies further includes (c) a
suggestion for avoiding a violation of the policy.” (App. Br. 34-35.)
In response, the Examiner again relies on In re Venner and takes
Official Notice stating:
[e]xemption in general is the concept to grant relief or an
exemption from a rule or requirement and also that
driver’s education and the like hints/teaches the users in
how to avoid violations and that therefore providing hints
and exemption in certain violations would have been
obvious in order to hint the users to avoid violations in
order to inform/teach the users on how to comply in
order to avoid violations./teaches In addition, nothing in
the claims exclude this known feature to be used in
advertisement approval. [sic]
(Ans. 9-11.)
We cannot agree the Examiner’s reasoning and find the Examiner’s
analogy to hints provided during “driver’s education” fails to adequately
address the limitations recited by claims 9 and 20. Moreover, we find the
Examiner’s reliance on Venner, here, to be misplaced, since the Examiner
has failed to provide adequate evidence of these steps being performed
manually by either of the references. Thus, we find the Examiner has not
adequately articulated, either with reference to the prior art or with a
convincing line of reasoning, how adding “driver’s education and the like
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

11
hints/teaches the users in how to avoid violations” [sic] would render
obvious “hints for making the ad comply with one or more violated policies”
or “a suggestion for avoiding a violation of the policy,” in response to a
determination not to approve the advertisement, as generally recited by
dependent claims 9 and 20, respectively. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (to support the conclusion that the claimed
combination is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must
expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed combination or the examiner
must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have
found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of
the references).
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to set forth a proper rationale for
combining Camporeale and Nuri in light of the Examiner’s Official Notice,
and thus, failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
dependent claims 9 and 20. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445 (during
examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness).
Based on the record, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale
and Nuri. For these same reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
10 and 11 which depend on claim 9.

Dependent claim 12-16
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest the step of “determining whether to exempt the violation,”
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

12
as recited by claim 12. (App. Br. 29-30.) Specifically, Appellants assert
that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to teach or suggest the
step of “determining whether to exempt the violation” using a whitelist of
one or more violation exemptions, as generally recited by dependent claims
13-16. (App. Br. 30-33.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and as discussed
supra, find that Camporeale’s electronic advertising system modified by the
teachings of Nuri’s rule-based system renders obvious the step of
determining whether to exempt a violation of one or more of the rules or
conditions taught by Camporeale and Nuri. (FF 4, 7, 8.) Specifically, we
find this additional “determining” step to be no more than another rule or
condition, which must be satisfied prior to a final determination as to
whether or not to approve the advertisement. This interpretation is
commensurate with Appellants’ Specification which describes “whitelists”
as “one or more violation exemptions” (FF 1), which we interpret to be the
same as the rules or conditions taught by the combination of Camporeale
and Nuri. (See FF 4, 6, 8.)
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and as such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri.

Dependent claim 22
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest “wherein each of the one or more policies further includes
(c) a link, executable by an ad delivery system customer service
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

13
representative but not by an advertiser, to further information about the
policy,” as recited by dependent claim 22. (App. Br. 35-36.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s
invention to have included the link executable by a customer service
representative in order to delegate the functions within the system.” (Ans.
7.) We cannot agree with the Examiner.
In making this determination, we find that the Examiner’s rejection
fails to address the instant limitation with reference to either of Camporeale
or Nuri. Moreover, we find that the Examiner has failed to adequately
articulate how delegating functions addresses “the link” or why it would be
obvious to provide this link to an ad delivery system customer service
representative but not by an advertiser. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri.

Dependent claims 23 and 24
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest “wherein each of the one or more policies further includes
(c) machine executable code for checking an advertisement to determine
whether or not the policy is violated,” as recited by dependent claim 23.
(App. Br. 37-40.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and as
discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 28, find that the
combination of Camporeale and Nuri renders obvious the step of
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

14
automatically checking an advertisement to determine whether or not a
policy is violated.
Accordingly, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive, and as such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri.
Appellants also do not substanitively argue claim 24, which depends
from dependent claim 23, and so we sustain the rejection of claim 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri for the same
reasons we found as to claim 23 supra.

Dependent claims 26 and 27
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest that if it was determined not to approve the advertisement,
then permitting, at least initially and by the automated ad policy checking
component, the advertisement to be served by the ad serving system during a
grace period, as generally recited by dependent claims 26 and 27. (App. Br.
41-42.) Specifically, Appellants assert that Camporeale states that its system
insures that no advertisement is displayed without prior approval of its
content, and as such, argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri
fails to teach or suggest the instant limitation. (App. Br. 42.)
In response, the Examiner states:
it is old and well known to give a grace period in which a
violations is allowed to be corrected in order to give the
user time before they default or are imposed a violation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to have
included if the ad wasn’t approve given a reason as to
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

15
why and permitting the ad to be served during a grace
period in order to give the user’s some flexibility and
time to correct the mistake. [sic]
(Ans. 8.)
While we may agree with the Examiner that under some
circumstances it is old and well-known for a service provider to provide a
grace period, we cannot agree with the Examiner that this taking of official
notice addresses the limitation of claims 26 and 27. Specifically, we agree
with Appellants that Camporeale discloses that its system insures that
advertisements are approved by their review staff prior to the advertisement
being displayed. (FF 3.) Therefore, without more explanation, we find that
Camporeale teaches away from the step of “permitting, at least initially and
by the automated ad policy checking component, the advertisement to be
served by the ad serving system during a grace period,” if it was determined
to not approve the advertisement.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not met the initial burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 26
and 27, and as such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26
and 27.

Dependent claim 29
Appellants argue that the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to
teach or suggest “forwarding the ad for manual inspection by an ad delivery
system customer service representative” when a determination is made to
not approve the advertisement, as recited by dependent claim 29. (App. Br.
44.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree with the
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

16
Examiner that Camporeale discloses forwarding an advertisement for
manual inspection by an ad delivery system customer service representative
if an initial determination results in the advertisement not being approved.
(FF 5; See also Ans. 8-9.)
Accordingly, Appellants argument is not persuasive, and as such, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Camporeale and Nuri.

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude:
1. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teaches or suggests the
steps of “automatically checking, by the automated ad policy checking
component and without manual human intervention, an advertisement for
compliance with one or more policies of the online ad serving system” and
“determining, by the automated ad policy checking component and without
manual human intervention, whether or not to approve the advertisement
using results of the automatic checking,” as generally recited by claims 1
and 28,” and as such, renders obvious the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 17-
19, 21, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to teach or suggest
that “if it was determined to approve the advertisement, then further
scheduling, by the automated ad policy checking component, a follow up
check of the advertisement,” as generally recited by claims 3 and 6, and as
such, fails to render obvious the subject matter of claims 3-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

17
3. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to teach or suggest
“hints for making the ad comply with one or more violated policies,” as
recited by claim 9 and “a suggestion for avoiding a violation of the policy,”
as recited by claim 20, and as such, fails to render obvious the subject matter
of claims 9-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teaches or suggests the
step of “determining whether to exempt the violation,” as recited by claim
12, and as such, renders obvious the subject matter of claims 12-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
5. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to teach or suggest
“wherein each of the one or more policies further includes (c) a link,
executable by an ad delivery system customer service representative but not
by an advertiser, to further information about the policy,” as recited by
dependent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teaches or suggests
“wherein each of the one or more policies further includes (c) machine
executable code for checking an advertisement to determine whether or not
the policy is violated,” as recited by dependent claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), and as such, also renders obvious the subject matter of dependent
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri fails to teach or suggest if
it was determined not to approve the advertisement, then permitting, at least
initially and by the automated ad policy checking component, the
advertisement to be served by the ad serving system during a grace period,
Appeal 2011-002578
Application No. 11/026,415

18
as generally recited by dependent claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8. the combination of Camporeale and Nuri teaches or suggests
“forwarding the ad for manual inspection by an ad delivery system customer
service representative” when a determination is made to not approve the
advertisement, as generally recited by dependent claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 12-19, 21, 23-25,
28, and 29, but reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-11, 20, 22, 26,
and 27.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ack