Ex Parte Bernal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

12269067 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

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.
12/269,067 11/12/2008 Andrzej BERNAL ABER-00101-UUS 9534
7590 12/31/2013
Andrzej BERNAL
ul. Koszalinska 54
Slawno, 76-100
POLAND
EXAMINER
NEWAY, SAMUEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2657
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDRZEJ BERNAL
____________________

Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for
providing translation services between a first party and a second party, using
a single telecommunication device; wherein, the system receives user
selection of one of the language selection options displayed in a menu on the
telecommunication device, the call is connected to a translator based on the
language selection (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for providing translation services between a first
party and a second party, the parties using a single
telecommunication device, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a plurality of language selection options in
said telecommunication device;
(b) receiving a language selection via said
telecommunication device; and
(c) connecting a telecommunication call via said single
telecommunication device to a translator based on said
language selection;
wherein said language selection options are provided in a
menu of said single telecommunication device to operate said
device, and said language selection is used to operate said
telecommunication device regardless of whether the parties use
the translation services.
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

3

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eslambolchi US 5,875,422 Feb. 23, 1999
Miller US 2005/0084078 A1 Apr. 21, 2005
Robinson US 2005/0261890 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
Kong US 2006/0095249 A1 May 4, 2006
Sahashi US 2006/0126821 A1 June 15, 2006
Hecker US 7,123,694 B1 Oct. 17, 2006
Sterns US 2007/0239625 A1 Oct. 11, 2007
Nanjundaswamy US 2008/0298559 A1 Dec. 4, 2008

Claims 1-4 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sahashi and Hecker.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sahashi, Hecker and Robinson.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sahashi, Hecker, Robinson, and Nanjundaswamy.
Claims 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sahashi, Hecker, Robinson, and Kong.
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Eslambolchi, Sterns, and Hecker.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Eslambolchi, Sterns, Hecker, and Robinson.
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

4
Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Eslambolchi, Sterns, Robinson, Hecker, and
Nanjundaswamy.
Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Eslambolchi, Sterns, Robinson, Hecker, and Kong.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Sahashi and Hecker teaches or would
have suggested “providing a plurality of language selection options in said
telecommunication device” and “wherein said language selection options are
provided in a menu of said single telecommunication device to operate said
device, and said language selection is used to operate said
telecommunication device regardless of whether the parties use the
translation services” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sahashi
1. Sahashi discloses a telephone interpretation system 100, having
a control unit 110 coupled to an interpretee terminal line interface (I/F),
where the system accepts an order for interpretation services when a person
(the “interpretee”) calls the telephone number of the interpretee terminal line
interface (I/F) 120 using a terminal 1 coupled to a telephone interpretation
assistance device 10 (Figs. 2 and 4; ¶¶ [0057] and [0068]).
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

5
2. The control unit 110 sets the contents of voice telop memory
126 coupled indirectly to the interpretee terminal line I/F 120 by sending it
messages for the terminal to establish a telephone connection based upon the
language type input from the interpretee (Fig. 2; ¶ [0061]). In particular,
when the system 100 detects a call, the control unit 110 sends a voice
message requesting an input of the language type of the interpretee A to
terminal 1 indirectly through the voice telop memory 126, such as “If you
speak Japanese, please press 1#” (in Japanese) and “If you speak English,
please press 2#” (in English) (Fig. 2; ¶ [0068]). Thereafter, the control unit
110 sets subsequent messages to be stored in voice telop memories 126 and
146 corresponding to the interpretee terminal 1 and the interpreter terminal 2
based upon the acquired language type of the interpretee (id.).
3. The control unit 110 selects and extracts the terminal number of
the interpreter by referencing an interpreter registration table 112 within it
based on the selected language types of the interpretee A and conversation
partner B and a selection condition (i.e. gender, age, field of specialization,
and level of skill) acquired from the interpretee (Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0068], [0070],
and [0060]).
4. In emergency situations, an interpreter in charge of emergency
response may be called automatically by the interpretee pressing a certain
number (¶ [0079]).
Hecker
5. Hecker discloses a method and system for automatically
translating messages in a communication system; wherein, during the
connection between a calling terminal device and a called terminal device, a
selector information identifying the languages of both the calling subscriber
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

6
and the called subscriber is compared; and when they do not match, a
translator is looped into the connection automatically (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 53-
67).
6. The communication system includes a database DB that
contains a text memory Read Only Memory (ROM) and a selector memory
Random Access Memory (RAM), whereby display texts for a dialog
operator interface DBO of each terminal device (FAXl, Tl, Ml) is stored in
the text memory ROM in several languages (col. 3, ll. 40-43). By pressing a
language selection button at the terminal device (FAXl, Tl, Ml), the dialog
operator interface DBO can be switched to another available language;
wherein, the language that was set at the terminal device (FAXl, Tl, Ml) is
stored as selector information in the selector memory RAM and affects all
further communication between the caller and the called party (Figs. 1 and 2;
col. 3, ll. 43-50 and col. 4, ll. 22-26). In particular, selector information SI-
A is filed in the selector memory RAM for the illustrated calling terminal
device EG-A (id.).
Robinson
7. Robinson discloses an apparatus for translating a conversation
between a first user 10 and a second user 20 speaking different natural
languages; wherein, the first user may press a directional key on the device
to highlight a language on a screen 21 amongst a list of languages to be
chosen to translate from and to (i.e. “From: English To: French.”) (¶ [0021]).

Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

7
Nanjundaswamy
8. Nanjundaswamy discloses a touch screen phone 600 that
provides prompts and/or provides announcements to the calling party 102 in
a chosen language, which the calling party may select (¶ [0046]). In
particular, the calling party 102 may enter selections (e.g., using a finger, a
stylus, etc.) corresponding to the prompts and/or announcements associated
with the phone call (id.).
Kong
9. Kong discloses a system having a plurality of monitors having
touch-screen displays 22 for each passenger where each presents a list of
available language options of which the passenger can touch the relevant
portion of display 22 to select their language choice (¶ [0099]). This
language choice is stored in a database on a server 12 (id.).
Miller
10. Miller discloses a telecommunication system and telephone 118
having a stored personal profile that contains the languages spoken by its
user; wherein, when a caller initiates a call to the telephone 118, language
information for the caller is transmitted with the caller id information and is
compared to languages spoken by the user stored in the profile to see
whether a match is present (¶ [0025]). If a match is not present, the system
uses intelligent call routing to route the call to a translator, where the call
routing is processed on a server 120 within a Private Branch Exchange
(PBX) 106 (id.). Since this language information is sent to the called party
at telephone 118 along with the country code of the caller, the called party
will be able to identify the geographic origination of a caller as well as
languages that are spoken by the caller prior to answering the call (¶ [0023]).
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

8
The personal profile may be stored on a personal device, such as a smart
card used in a mobile phone or through a Bluetooth device connected to the
phone (¶ [0022]).
Eslambolchi
11. Eslambolchi discloses a front end processor 26 that prompts the
calling party to enter a language translation preference for the speech of the
called party by sending the calling party an announcement of the form “Dial
or speak one for English, two for French, three for German, etc.” (col. 3, ll.
14-21). When the called party answers the call launched from the switch 16,
the front end processor 28 prompts the called party to select a language
translation preference for the speech uttered by the calling party using the
same type of announcement sent to the calling party (col. 3, ll. 29-32).
Sterns
12. Sterns discloses a system for providing language interpretation
services via the Internet; wherein, the user is provided a unique user
identifier that is stored by a Web server 218 in a user database 216 in a user
profile having a field for the language preference (¶¶ [0030] and [0050]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 8, and 9
Appellant contends that “language selection options [disclosed in
Sahashi] are not in the telecommunication device” because the
telecommunication device is not “capable of originating the language
selection options” (App. Br. 8). Appellant also contends “Hecker is silent
as to how or where the language selection options are provided” (id.).
Appellant further contends “the language selection options are not in a
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

9
menu of the telecommunication device” because the telecommunication
device is not “capable of displaying a menu” (App. Br. 9).
Appellant also contends “the language selection options are not
provided to operate the telecommunication device regardless of whether the
parties use the translation services,” since “the only time that language
selections are even made is when a call to a translation service is received
from a caller . . . ” (id.). Finally, Appellant contends “Sahashi teaches
away” because “it teaches that language selection must take place after a call
to a translation service is placed” (App. Br. 9-10).
Examiner concludes “the language selection[] options are outputted
via the telecommunication device, and wherever the selections originate,
they are provided and present in the device” (Ans. 18). Examiner finds “a
menu is merely a list from which to choose and, as such, [the] Sahashi
prompts are a menu” or what is “known in the art as[an] IVR (Interactive
Voice Response) menu” (id.). The Examiner notes that the “the features
upon which [Appellant] relies (i.e., displaying a menu) are not recited in the
rejected claim(s)” (id.). The Examiner further notes “a teaching of selecting
a language after placing a call is not tantamount to teaching against
performing the selection before placing the call” (Ans. 19). The Examiner
finds that since “[t]he selected language [disclosed in Hecker actuated by the
selection button at the terminal device] is used to display text of the dialog
operator interface,” it is provided to operate said device and “[t]he text is
displayed in the selected language regardless of whether the device is used
in [the] translation services” (id.) .
Appellant’s argument that the telecommunication device is not
“capable of displaying a menu” is not commensurate in scope with the
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

10
specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 9). In particular, claim 1 does not
recite such “display . . . menu” step as Appellant argues.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define “menu” other than “language selection
options [that] are provided in a menu of said single telecommunication
device to operate said device” (claim 1). Accordingly, we give “menu” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a list of available language selections
or options.
Sahashi discloses a telephone interpretation system that accepts an
order for interpretation services when the interpretee calls the telephone
number of the interpretee terminal line I/F through a terminal coupled to a
telephone interpretation assistance device (FF 1). The control unit sets the
contents of voice telop memory coupled indirectly to the interpretee terminal
line I/F with voice message requesting an input for the language type of the
interpretee, such as “If you speak Japanese, please press 1#” (in Japanese)
and “If you speak English, please press 2#” (in English) (FF 2). Thereafter,
the control unit sets subsequent messages to be stored in voice telop
memories based upon the acquired language type of the interpretee (id.).
The control unit also selects the interpreter based upon the selected language
type (FF 3).
We first find that the combination of the telephone interpretation
assistance device, interpretee terminal, and the telephone interpretation
system comprise the “telecommunication device” (claim 1). We also find
that the voice messages that are provided for the interpretee to select its
language type to be a list of available language selection options that are
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

11
provided in the telecommunication device. We find further that since the
control unit sets the contents of the voice telop memory based upon the
acquired language type of the interpretee, that the language selection option
is provided to operate the telecommunication device.
In addition, Hecker discloses method and system for automatically
translating messages in a communication system; wherein the system detects
when the language of the caller differs from the language of the called, a
translator is automatically added (FF 5). Display texts for a dialog operator
interface of each terminal device is stored in the text memory ROM in
several languages and when the caller presses a language selection button
the dialog operator interface is switched to the corresponding language (FF
6). The caller’s language type is stored in the selector memory RAM
affecting further communication between the caller and the called party (id.).
We find that Hecker’s language type selection is used to operate the
telecommunication device regardless of whether the parties use the
translation services.
In view of our claim construction, we find that the combination of
Sahashi and Hecker at least suggests all contended claim limitations of claim
1.
Though Appellant also contends that the combination of the
references “teaches away” (App. Br. 9), our reviewing court has held that
“‘[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

12
Importers Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
The issue here is not whether Sahashi teaches the feature of language
selection without the use of translation services, but rather whether a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading Sahashi, would be discouraged from using
the terminal device whose operation is based upon the language selection
whether or not translation services are used as taught by Hecker.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sahashi in view of Hecker. Further, claims 2-
4, 8, and 9 (depending from claims 1) which have not been argued
separately, fall with claim 1.
Claim 10
Appellant contends that the claim requires “three parties:” “a first
party (person reporting emergency), a second party (an emergency
responder), and a translator;” yet, “in Sahashi apparently the emergency
responder is also an interpreter, which obviates the need for a separate
translation service and thus obviates the need for this method” (App. Br. 10).
However, the Examiner finds Sahashi discloses “[t]he second party may also
be an emergency responder who needs the interpreter for translation to
communicate with the first party” (Ans. 20).
As noted supra, Sahashi discloses a telephone interpretation system
that accepts an order for interpretation services when the interpretee calls the
telephone number of the interpretee terminal line I/F to be connected to an
interpreter for a conversation with a conversation partner (FF 1 and 3). An
interpreter in charge of emergency response may be called automatically by
the interpretee pressing certain dial numbers (FF 4). We find that the
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

13
interpretee is the first party and the interpreter (emergency response
personnel) represents both the “second party” and “translator” recited in
claim 10. We note that claim 10 does not explicitly require that the “second
party” and the “translator” are separate and distinct.
We find that the combination of Sahashi and Hecker at least suggests
the contended claim limitations of claim 10.
Claims 5 and 6
Appellant argues that claims 5 and 6 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and Robinson
does not cure the deficiencies of Sahashi and Hecker (App. Br. 10-11).
Appellant contends further that “merely providing an alternative way of
language selection is not a motivation to modify a reference where a true
reason behind the modification is lacking” (App. Br. 11).
As noted supra, however, we find that Sahashi and Hecker at least
suggest all the features of claim 1. In addition, Robinson discloses an
apparatus for translating a conversation between two users where the user
may press a directional key on the device to highlight a language on a screen
among a list of languages to be chosen to translate from and to (i.e. “From:
English To: French”) (FF 7). We find that the Robinson’s method that
includes a step of displaying on a screen a list of languages to be selected by
the user comprises displaying the language selections options on a screen of
the telecommunication device.
We find that the combination of Sahashi, Hecker, and Robinson at
least suggests the contended claim limitations of claim 5.
We also find the Examiner’s motivation for combining the references
proper since displaying the language selection options does “provide an
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

14
additional way of [presenting] language selection” (Ans. 7). The Supreme
Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Sahashi’s method within a telephone interpretation system (including
control unit and voice telop memory) that provides a list of language
selections to the interpretee with a system that displays language selections
on a screen, as disclosed in Robinson, produces a method that provides a list
of language selection options on a screen which would be obvious (Ans. 7;
FF 1 and 7).
Claim 7
Appellant contends that “while Nanjundaswamy does recite a touch
screen,” “Nanjundaswamy does not teach or recite that pressing a portion of
the screen on the telecommunication device corresponds to a language
selection option” (App. Br. 12). Appellant argues that while Kong does
“recite pressing a portion of a screen corresponding to the language selection
option,” Kong is “only reciting it in a method where the language selection
options are made accessible to software applications so that the applications
can, when operated selectively, provide output to each respective person in
the respective language choice” (App. Br. 13). Appellant argues that “a
skilled artisan would not immediately realize that Kong . . . would be
applicable to a method for providing translation services” because it is “not
in [a] technological art that is closely related to Sahashi - Hecker -
Robinson” and hence one would not be “motivat[ed] to modify” (id.).
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

15
Both Nanjundaswamy and Kong disclose touch-screen displays
having language options displayed that a user is to select by touching a
portion of the screen (FF 8 and 9). We find that the devices of
Nanjundaswamy and Kong having methods which comprise a step pressing
a portion of the screen on the telecommunication device corresponding to
the language selection option.
We find that the combination of Sahashi, Hecker, Robinson, and
Nanjundaswamy in addition to the combination of Sahashi, Hecker,
Robinson, and Kong at least suggests providing the contended claim
limitations of claim 7.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sahashi in view of Hecker, Robinson, and
Nanjundaswamy and of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sahashi in
view of Hecker, Robinson, and Kong.
Claims 11-14
Appellant contends that “there is no mention anywhere in Miller [] as
to whether the [] call-placing party is provided with a plurality of language
selection options in the first telecommunication device, or whether the party
simply enters the different languages spoken by it into a profile” or “that the
call receiving party also stores languages spoken by the call-receiving party
in a profile” (App. Br. 17). Appellant argues that Miller does “not recite that
the language selections are transmitted to a server or stored in a database;
they are only stored locally with respect to the caller’s personal device”
(App. Br. 18). Appellant further argues that Miller does “not recite that the
language selections options are necessarily provided to operate the first
device” (App. Br. 20) or that they are “used to operate the first
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

16
telecommunication device regardless of whether the parties use the
translation services” (App. Br. 21).
However, the Examiner finds that “Miller discloses receiving and
storing a first language selection in a first telecommunication device,”
“receiving and storing a second language selection in a second
telecommunication device,” and storing in “‘a profile as to languages spoken
by the user at that device’” (Ans. 22). The Examiner finds further that
“Eslambolchi discloses prompting a calling party in a first language to
manually select the identifier of the first language from a menu with a list of
languages” (id.). The Examiner also finds that Sterns’ language selection is
inputted directly into a database via the Internet (Ans. 23). The Examiner
notes that he relies upon Hecker reference to teach that the language
selection options being used for to operate the first telecommunication
device regardless of the parties using the translation services, and not Miller
(Ans. 24).
Miller discloses a telephone having a stored personal profile that
contains the languages spoken by its user; wherein, when the calling party’s
language information (sent with its caller id information) differs from that
which is stored in the personal profile, a translator is connected using
intelligent call routing which is processed on a server (FF 10). We find that
the sending of the language information to the caller comprises receiving
and storing the language selection.
In addition, Eslambolchi discloses a front end processor that prompts
the calling party to enter a language translation preference for the speech of
the called party using a list of languages and which number to dial or speak
(FF 11). The same prompts are made for the called party (id.). In view of
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

17
our broad but reasonable interpretation of “menu”, we also find that
Eslambolchi’s step of prompting the calling and the called party with a list
of language translation preferences teaches or suggests providing language
selection options in a menu of said first telecommunication device to operate
the telecommunication device, within the meaning of claim 11
Furthermore, Sterns discloses the storage of a unique user identifier
within a database on a server, where the database profile includes a field for
the language preference of the user (FF 12). We find that the storage of the
language preference of a user in a database comprises the step of storing the
language selection in a database as recited in claim 11.
As noted supra, we found that Hecker discloses a telecommunication
device where the caller’s language type selection is used to operate the
telecommunication device regardless of whether the parties use the
translation services.
Therefore, we find that the combination of Miller, Eslambolchi,
Sterns, and Hecker at least suggests all the contended claim limitations of
claim 11.
As to claim 15, Appellant contends the same arguments made with
respect to claim 11, in addition to arguing the Robinson does not disclose the
claim limitation that the Examiner relies upon Eslambolchi to teach (App.
Br. 22). Therefore, claims 12-15 (depending from claim 11) which have not
been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 16-20
Appellant argues that claim 16-20 is patentable over the cited prior art
for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 11 (App. Br. 23 and 24).
Further, similar to the arguments made with respect to claim 7, Appellant
Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

18
argues that “Nanjundaswamy does not teach or recite that pressing a portion
of the screen on the telecommunication device corresponds to a language
selection option” (App. Br. 23).
As noted supra, we find that both Nanjundaswamy and Kong disclose
touch-screen displays having language options displayed that a user is to
select by touching a portion of the screen (FF 8 and 9). We find that the
language options provided on the touch-screen comprises the step of
pressing a portion of the screen on the telecommunication device
corresponding to a language selection option.
We find that the combination of Miller, Eslambolchi, Sterns,
Robinson, Hecker, and Nanjundaswamy and the combination of Miller in
view of Eslambolchi, Sterns, Robinson, Hecker, and Kong at least suggests
all the claim limitations of claim 16.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miller in view of Eslambolchi, Sterns,
Robinson, Hecker, and Nanjundaswamy and of claims 16-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Miller in view of Eslambolchi, Sterns, Robinson,
Hecker, and Kong .

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
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).

Appeal 2011-006704
Application 12/269,067

19
AFFIRMED

ke