Ex Parte Beek et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 16, 2009

09882416 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PETRUS VAN BEEK, MUHAMMED IBRAHIM SEZAN
and GEORGE R. BORDEN IV
____________________

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 16, 2009
____________________

Before: ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1-31, 33-42, and 44- 59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
The Invention
According to the Appellants, the invention is a computer-readable
JPEG2000 image file format that extends uses of the JPEG2000 metadata
boxes (Spec. 4). The metadata boxes may be extended to include data
representative of a description of content depicted by the JPEG2000 file or
to otherwise provide interactivity with the rendered image (Id.).

Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary Claims for each grouping of the rejections are as follows:

1. A digital file stored on a computer-readable medium, said digital file
comprising:
(a) a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a manner
consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render
an image when read by a computer;
(b) at least one of said boxes being a metadata box; and
(c) including information within said metadata box describing the
content of said image.

15. A digital file stored on a computer-readable medium, said digital file
comprising:
(a) a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a manner
consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render
an image when read by a computer;
(b) at least one of said boxes being a UUID box; and
(c) including information within said UUID box describing the
content of said image.

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

3
29. A digital file stored on a computer-readable medium, said digital file
comprising:
(a) a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a manner
consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render
an image when read by a computer;
(b) at least one of said boxes containing information that provides
interactivity with said image.

41. A digital file stored on a computer-readable medium, said digital file
comprising:
(a) a MPEG-7 description scheme that includes the identification of
the format of at least one of audio and visual media;
(b) said description scheme including data for rendering said at least
one of said audio and visual media when read by a computer; and
(c) said at least one of said audio and visual media being contained
within said description scheme wherein said description scheme
includes a choice of two different encoding schemes for data,
namely, base16 and base64.

47. A digital file stored on a computer-readable medium, said digital file
comprising:
(a) a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a manner
consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render
an image when read by a computer;
(b) at least one of said boxes being a UUID box; and
(c) including information within said UUID box indicating the
location of binary data, within said file and not within said UUID
box, associated with said image.

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

4

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
ISO/IEC, JPEG 2000 Image Coding System, Final Committee Draft
Version 1.0 (2000) (hereinafter “JPEG 2000”).
Fernando Pereira, MPEG-7: A Standard for Describing Audiovisual
Information, IEE Colloquium on Multimedia Databases and MPEG-7 (Ref.
No. 1999/056), (1999) (hereinafter “Pereira”).
ISO/IEC, MPEG-7 Multimedia Description Scheme, Description
Definition Language V3.0, N3391 (2000) (hereinafter “N3391”).

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-31, 33-42, and 44-59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
The Examiner rejected claims 47-49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by JPEG 2000.
The Examiner rejected claims 41-42 and 44-46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Pereira in view of N33391.
Claims 32 and 43 have been cancelled.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE IN PART and AFFIRM IN PART. We also enter
new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 15, 29 and 50 pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

5
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection: Claims 1-31, 33-42 and 44-59
Appellants contend their recited invention, a digital file “stored on a
computer readable medium,” is directed to an object not merely an abstract
arrangement of data; therefore, the recited invention meets the statutory
requirements (App. Br. 6). Additionally, Appellants further contend several
claims recite user-interactivity with the image rendered by the computer
(App. Br. 7). Appellants continue that this user-interactivity is functional
and not mere organization of data and thus, these claims recite statutory
inventions (Id.).
The Examiner finds the claims are nonfunctional descriptive material
per se since the claims recite mere arrangements of data; therefore, the
Examiner concludes that the claims are directed to nonstatutory subject
matter (Ans. 4).
Issue: Do claims 1-31, 33-42, and 44-59 recite statutory subject
matter under § 101?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
§101
The court in In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
considered the rejection of claims to memory storing a data structure and
found the data structure resulted in electrical or magnetic differences in the
structure of the memory, resulting in a memory that performed differently.
In view of this performance relationship between the data structure and the
memory the court held that no prima facie case of obviousness had been
established. See id. at 1584.
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

6
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we conclude the Examiner has erred in
rejecting the claims as not comprising statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner's argument centers on the claims reciting
nonfunctional descriptive material since it is a mere arrangement of data and
is not a data structure that imparts functionality when employed as a
computer component (Ans. 4).
It has been the practice for a number of years that a “Beauregard
Claim” of this nature be considered statutory at the USPTO as a product
claim. (MPEP 2106.01, I). Though not finally adjudicated, this practice is
not inconsistent with In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
claims at issue recite a digital file stored on a computer readable medium.
This has been found statutory under In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579. In view of
the totality of these precedents, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that claims 1-31, 33-42, and 44-59 recite statutory
subject matter.
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) Rejection: Claims 47-49 and 54
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the rejection of claims 47-49
and 54 based on claim 47 alone; therefore, we decide the appeal of claims
47-49 and 54 based on claim 47 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

7
Appellants contend a UUID box and a UUID Info Box are
functionally distinguishable from each other in a JPEG2000 file (App. Br.
7). Appellants therefore contend since JPEG 2000 distinguishes between the
two types of boxes, the term UUID Box cannot be read onto a UUID Info
Box (Reply Br. 8).
The Examiner finds UUID Boxes can store binary data and UUID
Info boxes contain a list of UUIDs and links to more information (Ans. 5).
Further, the Examiner finds no difference exists between the UUID box and
UUID Info box as they both have the same structure and the name/label of
the box is nonfunctional descriptive material (Ans. 12).
Issue: Have Appellants shown error in the Examiner’s finding that a
UUID Info Box can be mapped to a UUID Info Box?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellants’ Invention
(1) Appellants contend their invention extends the JPEG2000 file
format to include data representative of a description of the content depicted
by the JPEG2000 file or to otherwise provide interactivity with the rendered
image (Spec. 4, ll. 9-15).

JPEG 2000
(2) JP2 file format is an optional file format applications may
choose to contain JPEG 2000 compressed image data (p. 137, § I.1). The
JP2 file format provides a foundation for storing application specific data
(metadata) in association with a JPEG 2000 codestream, such as information
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

8
required to display the image (p. 138, § I.4). JP2 is a contiguous sequence of
boxes (p. 137, § I.2.1).
(3) A box is a building block defined by a unique box type and
length (p. 137, § I.2.1). Box type specifies the kind of information that shall
be stored with the box (p. 137, § I.2.1). Some particular boxes may contain
other boxes (p. 137, § I.2.1). Other boxes may be found between the boxes;
however all such data shall be in box format (p. 139, § I.4.2). Since all data
is encapsulated in boxes, new boxes can be created (p. 140, § I.4.5).
(4) One important aspect of the JP2 format is the ability to add
metadata to a JP2 file (p. 140, § I.4.5). The optional JP2 file format contains
metadata about the image in addition to the codestream (p. 11, § 8.2).
(5) The JP2 header box, UUID Info box as well as many “optional”
boxes and boxes within boxes, i.e., image header box within the JP2 header
box, describe the content of the image (p. 145-146, § I.7.3; p. 157, §§ I.7.4,
I.9.1; p. 158, §§ I.9.2 - I.9.3; and p. 146, § I.7.3.1). The JP2 header box, for
example, includes information regarding the colorspace, palette map, and
resolution of the image (p. 145-146, § I.7.3).
(6) Vendors can extend the JP2 file by adding binary data using
UUID boxes (p. 158, § I.9.3). UUID boxes contain vendor specific data (p.
158, § I.9.2). The UUID box is optional as is the UUID Info box and a
particular order of the boxes is not generally implied except the JP2
Signature box must be the first box and the JP2 header box must precede the
Contiguous codestream box (p. 139, § I.4.2).
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

9
(7) The UUID Info box includes a list of UUIDs for which this
UUID Info box specifies a link to more information and the respective URLs
and may be found anywhere in the top level of the JP2 file (p. 158, § I.9.3).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
"Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue."
Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144, at *2 (BPAI 2007).
"The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim
limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior
art." In re Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1582 (citing In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). "Claims must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). "[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest
reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

Anticipation- §102
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452,
1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

10

ANALYSIS
A UUID box and UUID Info box, as well as the JP2 file are all boxes
as defined by JPEG 2000 (FF 2, FF 5). The JP2 file is a plurality of boxes
(FF 2). One such box, the UUID Info box, contains information that
indicates the location of binary data (FF 7). Boxes are created by specifying
the type of information and length of the information (FF 3). Accordingly, a
user may change the contents of a box by changing the box type.
The functionality recited for the UUID box in Appellants’ claim is
described by JPEG 2000 as for the UUID Info box. Appellants argue the
boxes are different according to JPEG 2000; Appellants’ claim 47, states the
boxes are “consistent with the JPEG2000 specification.” However, JPEG
2000 allows addition of boxes so long as the data is in box format (FF 2).
Such boxes include the optional UUID box and UUID Info Box.
Moreover, Appellants do not define the term “consistent with” in their
specification. Therefore, we look to the ordinary meaning of the term
“consistent with” which is defined as “compatible with.” See Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2000). Therefore, the invention as
claimed need only be compatible or harmonious with the JPEG2000
specification – not compliant with or conforming to JPEG2000 specification
as Appellants describe in their specification (Spec. 5, ll. 7-10 and Spec 5,
l.21 – Spec. 6, l. 2). “Consistent with” is a broader term that does not
require complete conformity with the JPEG2000 specification. Again, since
the boxes need only be in box format as described in JPEG 2000, we find a
file with changes in an optional box name is “consistent with” the JPEG2000
specification.
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

11
Appellants additionally argue the boxes are functionally distinguished
from each other by position of the data within the file as a whole (Reply Br.
7); however, since each box is optional and a particular order of boxes is not
required for these two boxes or many others (FF 6), we find the position of
the data within the file as a whole does not affect the functionality.
Since the functionality of the UUID Info Box is the same as
Appellants’ UUID box, we find mere renaming of the box is inadequate to
differentiate between the elements. The difference is semantic and relates to
the label attached to the box not to its function.
Therefore, we find JPEG 2000 anticipates the invention as recited in
claim 47. Since claims 48, 49 and 54 depend directly from claim 47 and
these claims were not argued separately, claims 48, 49 and 54 fall with claim
47.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding a UUID
Info Box can be mapped to a UUID Info Box.
Therefore, Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 47-49 and 54 as being anticipated under 102(a) over JPEG
2000.
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection: Claims 41, 42 and 44-46
Appellants contend their recited invention describes the “data for
rendering said at least one of said audio and visual media” is within the
MPEG-7 description scheme (which is contrary to Pereira, which states the
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

12
MPEG-7 description scheme and the “reproduction data” are “co-located”
(Reply Br. 8-9).
The Examiner finds Pereira teaches “MPEG-7 descriptions may be
physically co-located with the reproduction data, in the same data stream”
and therefore, Pereira in view of N33391 renders the present invention
obvious (Ans. 4).
Issue: Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding audio
and visual media being contained within the MPEG-7 description scheme
would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art in light of
Pereira in view of N33391?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)

Pereira
(8) MPEG-7 is a standard representation of audiovisual information
(p. 6/1). MPEG-7 is mainly intended for content identification purposes,
while other representation formats, such as MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are
mainly intended for content reproduction purposes, although the boundaries
may be not so sharp (p. 6/2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness - §103
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

13
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S.
Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Claims 41, 42 and 44-46
In their Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the rejection of claims 41-42
and 44-46 based on claim 41 alone. Claims 42 and 44-46 depend directly
from claim 41 and thus, we decide the appeal of claims 41, 42 and 44-46, on
the basis of claim 41 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

14
ANALYSIS
MPEG-7 is mainly used for content identification and MPEG-2 and
MPEG-4 mainly for content reproduction purposes (FF 8). However,
Pereira teaches the boundaries are not sharp between the functionality
associated with the MPEG-7 files and the other MPEG files (FF 8).
Therefore, we find Pereira suggests the MPEG-7 file may be used for
content reproduction purposes along with its main use of content
identification.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the reasons above, Appellants have not established the Examiner
erred in finding audio and visual media being contained within the MPEG-7
description scheme would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art over Pereira in view of N33391.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 41, 42, and 44-46 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Pereira in view and N33391.

NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being anticipated by JPEG 2000. We also
reject claims 29 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over
JPEG 2000.
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

15
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. §102(a): claims 1 and 15
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a
manner consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render an
image when read by a computer.” JPEG 2000 describes the JP2 file as a
sequence of boxes that contains image data used to create an image through
chosen applications (FF 2). We therefore find JPEG 2000 teaches a plurality
of boxes containing data arranged in a manner consistent with the JPEG2000
specification and suitable to render an image when read by a computer.
Claim 1 additionally recites at least one of the boxes is a metadata box
that includes information within itself describing the content of the image to
be rendered. The JP2 file format is able to add metadata in association with
a codestream to a JP2 file (FF 2 and FF 4). The JP2 file contains metadata
about the image (FF 4). Since the data is encapsulated in boxes (FF 4), the
metadata is within a box.
Therefore, we find JPEG 2000 teaches at least one of the boxes of the
digital file is a metadata box and information within that box describes the
content of the image. Accordingly, we reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(a) as anticipated by JPEG 2000.
Claim 15 recites also recites “a plurality of boxes containing data
arranged in a manner consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and
suitable to render an image when read by a computer.” For the reasons set
forth above, we find that JPEG 2000 teaches this element.
Claim 15 further recites at least one of the boxes is a UUID box that
contains information describing the content of the image. As discusses
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

16
above, UUID is a label – several boxes within the JP2 file include
information describing the content of the image. For example, the UUID
box provides vendor specific information and the JP2 Header box provides
colorspace, palette map, and resolution information (FF 5). Also, since the
“consistent with” means compatible with, the renaming of a box would still
be consistent with the JP2 file.
Based on the foregoing, we find JPEG 2000 describes a plurality of
boxes, at least one of the boxes describing the content of the image within a
data file that is consistent with the JPEG2000 specification. We therefore
reject claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as anticipated by JPEG 2000.

ISSUES
35 U.S.C. §103(a): claims 29 and 50
Claim 29 recites “a plurality of boxes containing data arranged in a
manner consistent with the JPEG2000 specification and suitable to render an
image when read by a computer” as recited in claim 1. For the reasons set
forth in the discussion with respect to claim 1, we find JPEG 2000 teaches
this element.
Claim 29 additionally recites at least one of the boxes in the digital
file contains information provides interactivity with the image. Appellants
do not provide a definition of interactivity. The ordinary meaning of
“interactive” is mutually or reciprocally active. See Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2000). Using this definition, the at least one
of the boxes containing information and the image must be mutually or
reciprocally active.
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

17
We find data in a JP2 file is interactive with the rendered image. For
example, the resolution data (in the Image Header box) and the rendered
image are interactive – the data and image act with each other to produce the
image in the proper resolution for that particular image. Therefore, we find
at least one of the boxes of the JP2 file contains information that provides
interactivity with the image.
Since we find JPEG 2000 teaches the invention as recited in claim 29,
we reject claim 29 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over JPEG 2000.
Claim 50 depends from independent claim 47 which we have found to
be anticipated by JPEG 2000. Claim 50 further recites the “information
provides interactivity with the image.” Further to the reasons stated above
with respect to claims 29 and 47, we find the information in the UUID box
and the image are interactive – the data and image act together with each
other to produce the image with respect to the vendor information or other
information that may be contained in the UUID box. Therefore, we find
JPEG 2000 teaches the “information provides interactivity with said image”
and as a result, claim 50 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over JPEG 2000

Dependent claims 2-14, 16-28, 30-40, 51-53 and 55-59
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is a review body,
rather than a place of initial examination. We have made rejections above
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). However, we have not reviewed claims 2-14,
16-28, 30-31, 33-40, 51-53 and 55-59 to the extent necessary to determine
whether these claims are patentable over JPEG 2000, Pereira and/or N3391.
We leave it to the Examiner to determine the appropriateness of any further
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

18
rejections based on the JPEG 2000, Pereira and/or N3391 alone or in
combination with any other prior art references.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-31, 33-42 and 44-59 under 35
U.S.C. §101 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 47-49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by JPEG 2000 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 41-42 and 44-46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of N3391 is
affirmed.
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejections, this decision
contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b),
specifically, we reject claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as being
anticipated by JPEG 2000. We also reject claims 29 and 50 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being obvious over JPEG 2000.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner . . . .
Appeal 2008-2033
Application 09/882,416

19

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record . . . .

Should Appellants elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection,
the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the
prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If Appellants elect prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for
final action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for
rehearing thereof.
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).

AFFIRMED- IN -PART
REVERSED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

msc

TIMOTHY A. LONG
CHERNOFF, VILHAUER, MCCLUNG AND STENZEL, L.L.P.
1600 ODS TOWER
601 SW SECOND AVE.
PORTLAND OR 97204