Ex Parte Fields et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2019

14012586 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/012,586 08/28/2013 Mike Fields
86528 7590 02/20/2019
Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1650
Austin, TX 78701
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16091.10503 2 1026
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TIEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKE FIELDS, ROBERT T. TREFZGER,
RAMAKRISHNA DUVVURI, and TIM G. SANIDAS
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586 1
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--13, which are all the claims
pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as
the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to "automatically providing
customized pricing and product information based on limited personal
data." Spec. 1. 3
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and is
reproduced below with bracketed material added.
1. A computer implemented method of distributing
over the Internet from a server to a remote user interface device
quantitative information based on limited prospective customer
personal data, the computer implemented method comprising:
[a] providing an interactive website interface from the
server to the remote user interface device, which allows a remote
user to input non-identifying prospective insurance customer
information comprising: demographic information; location
information; and property information;
[b] receiving, at the server and transmitted over the
Internet from the remote user interface device, the non-
identifying prospective insurance customer information;
[ c] automatically identifying, by a processor, a comparable
segment of existing customers based on the non-identifying
demographic information, the non-identifying location
information, and the non-identifying information about the
property of the prospective customer;
3 Our Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed August 28, 2013
("Spec."); (2) the Final Rejection mailed November 2, 2016 ("Final Act.");
(3) the Appeal Brief filed March 20, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); (4) the
Examiner's Answer mailed July 28, 2017 ("Ans."); and (5) the Reply Brief
filed September 28, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
[ d] automatically executing, by the processor, a predictive
model developed from information regarding existing customers
in the comparable segment of existing customers to determine a
quantitative product-related parameter for delivery to the
prospective customer;
[ e] generating, by the processor, displayable content
compnsmg the determined quantitative product-related
parameter, wherein the displayable content is communicated
from the processor to the server;
[ fJ transmitting the displayable content over the Internet
from the server to the remote user interface device; and
[g] displaying the displayable content on the remote user
interface device, wherein the displayable content comprises the
quantitative policy-related parameters and hyperlinks, wherein
the hyperlinks allow the remote user to navigate the interactive
website to allow the prospective customer to obtain an online
quote.
Appeal Br. 16.
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 4--13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter. See Final Act. 3-8.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
Principles of Law
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 Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
3
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
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 Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim
at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "[a]
claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become
nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450
4
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing
more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to
patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also
indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment." Id. (citing Benson and
Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum 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.
USPTOJanuary 7, 2019 Revised Section 101 Memorandum
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019 ("Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
5
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 13. We select
independent claim 1 as exemplary of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
The Examiner determines claim 1 "recites a method of providing
quantitative information based on limited prospective customer personal
data," and, thus, "relate[s] to one of the concepts identified as abstract ideas
by the courts." Final Act. 4; see Ans. 3-12. The Examiner also determines
the claim does "not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea"
Final Act. 5; see Ans. 12-15.
6
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
Appellants present several arguments against the § 101 rejection. We
do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive, as discussed in greater detail
below. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to
Appellants' argument supported by a preponderance of evidence. See
Ans. 3-18. Thus, we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions. See
Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-18. We analyze the claim under the 2019 Revised
§ 101 Guidance and adopt the nomenclature for the steps used in the
Memorandum.
STEP 1
Section 101 provides that "[ w ]hoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Initially, the
Examiner determines, and we agree, that independent claim 1 recites steps
for a process. See Final Act. 4. As such, claim 1 is directed to a statutory
class of invention within 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process.
STEP 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Memorandum, we must determine
whether claim 1, being directed to a statutory class of invention, nonetheless
falls within a judicial exception.
The Examiner determines claim 1 's "process describes the concepts
which relate to one of the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts,
such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information
7
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
( Cyberfone4) or collecting and comparing known information ( Classen 5)"
and therefore "is directed to an abstract idea." Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that claim 1 "is clearly directed to identifying a
comparable segment of existing customers, executing a predictive model to
determine a quantitative product-related parameter, and displaying the
quantitative policy-related parameters and hyperlink" and, thus, is not
abstract. Appeal Br. 11.
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. The preamble to claim 1
recites that it is a "computer implemented method of distributing ...
quantitative information based on limited prospective customer personal
data." Appeal Br. 16. The steps in claim 1 recite: (a) providing a website
interface that allows a user to input non-identifying prospective insurance
customer information; (b) receiving the information; ( c) identifying a
comparable segment of existing customers based on the customer
information; ( d) executing a model developed from existing customer
information to determine a product-related parameter for delivery to the
prospective customer; ( e) generating displayable content comprising the
product-related parameter; (f) transmitting the displayable content, and (g)
displaying the displayable content with hyperlinks. See Appeal Br. 16.
The Specification, likewise, describes that certain "products, including
insurance and other financial products and services, cannot be accurately
priced or responsibly suggested until a prospective customer has provided a
4 Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (non-precedential)).
5 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057
(Fed.Cir.2011 ).
8
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
substantial quantity of relevant, personal information." Spec. 3. "This
requirement is a barrier" to sales "because prospective customers are
unwilling to invest the time and energy needed to complete the long form or
to disclose the personal information." Id. The claimed invention is
seemingly intended to address this issue by identifying a comparable
segment of existing customers based on limited, non-identifying information
from the potential customer and providing the product information based on
a predictive model developed using stored information of the comparable
existing customer segment.
Considered in light of the Specification, the purported advance over
the prior art is, thus, a way of providing quantitative product information to a
potential customer based on limited non-identifying customer data by
identifying similar existing customers and using the existing customer data
to determine the quantitative product information. In that context, claim 1 is
directed to: (1) collecting and analyzing limited non-identifying information
of a potential customer to identify similar existing customers (steps (a), (b ),
( c) ); (2) calculating quantitative product information for the potential
customer based on information stored about the identified similar existing
customers (step (d)); (3) generating, transmitting, and displaying the
displayable content comprising the calculating quantitative product
information with hyperlinks (steps (e), (f), (g))-in other words, to a form
of targeted advertising, which is a method of organizing human activity and,
therefore, an abstract idea.
Additionally, we note that the claimed method is an example of
concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the
steps of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data mimic human
9
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
thought processes, perhaps with paper and pencil. See Bancorp Services,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014) ("[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 Memorandum n.14 (citing 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."). We observe that several other Federal Circuit
cases have found claims that simply collect, manipulate, and display data,
like Appellants' claim 1, are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. See,
e.g., Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (collection, manipulation, and display of data); Content Extraction
and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("collecting data, ... recognizing certain data within
the collected data set, and ... storing that recognized data in a memory.").
From this we conclude that claim 1 recites either a method of
organizing human activity or a mental process, or both, as provided for in
the Memorandum.
STEP 2A Prong 2
Next, we determine whether the claim is directed to the abstract
concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological
implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e.,
10
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223,
discussing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 175.
Applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes
claim 1 does not recite:
improvements to another technology or technical field;
improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; applying
the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; adding a specific limitation other than
what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or
adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment.
Ans. 14.
We agree with the Examiner. The mere introduction of a computer or
generic computer technology into the claim need not alter the analysis. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims
here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract
idea [] on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. We determine claim
1 does not. Viewed as a whole, Appellants' method claim simply recites the
abstract idea of providing quantitative insurance product information to a
potential customer based on non-identifying customer information by
identifying similar existing customers and using the existing customer data
to determine the quantitative insurance product information, as performed by
a generic computer processor. To be sure, the claims recite doing so by
providing an interactive website interface to receive the non-identifying
customer information, automatically executing a predictive model developed
from information regarding existing customers, generating displayable
11
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
content, transmitting the displayable content, and displaying the content with
hyperlinks to allow the prospective customer to obtain an online quote. But
this is no more than abstract conceptual advice on the parameters for such
insurance data generation and the generic computer processes necessary to
process those parameters, and does not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1, thus, simply recites an abstract idea executed using generic
computer technology, such as "a server," "a remote user interface device,"
and "a processor" of a generic computer. Appeal Br. 16. Moreover, because
claim 1 fails to recite a specific algorithm for automatically identifying "a
comparable segment of existing customers based on the non-identifying
demographic information," the broadly recited "identifying" can be
interpreted as being executed based merely on a subjective judgement of a
similarity between the existing customer data and the prospective customer
data, rather than on specific technological implementation details. To
identify similar data based on subjective judgement is not a technological
operation.
In view of Appellants' Specification, and consistent with the
Examiner's determinations, we conclude that claim 1 does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. We, thus, agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Appellants argue claim 1, similar to the claims in McRO, "is focused
on a specific asserted improvement in computer identification of comparable
customers and determination of products, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a
particular type." Reply Br. 3 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). This argument is unpersuasive
because Appellants' claim 1 is unlike the claims in McRO. The patent at
12
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
issue in McRO describes that, prior to the claimed invention, character
animation and lip synchronization were accomplished by human animators,
with the assistance of a computer, and involved the use of a so-called
"keyframe" approach in which animators set appropriate parameters, i.e.,
morph weights, at certain important times, i.e., in order to produce accurate
and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions. McRO, 837 F.3d. at
1305. Animators knew what phoneme a character pronounced at a given
time from a time-aligned phonetic transcription (a "timed transcript"). Id.
In accordance with the prior technique, animators, using a computer, thus,
manually determined the appropriate morph weight sets for each keyframe
based on the phoneme timings in the timed transcript. Id.
Thus, in McRO, the improvement in computer animation was realized
by using "rules, rather than artists [i.e., human animators], to set the morph
weights and transitions between phonemes" (id. at 1313 (citation omitted)),
i.e., in McRO, the invention used "rules to automatically set a keyframe at
the correct point to depict more realistic speech, achieving results similar to
those previously achieved manually by animators." Id. at 1307. The rules in
McRO, thus, allowed the computer to produce accurate and realistic
synchronization in animated characters that could only previously be
produced by humans.
Appellants argue that their claim, similar to those in McRO, "recites a
specific set of rules directed to identifying a comparable segment of existing
customers, executing a predictive model to determine a quantitative product-
related parameter, and displaying the quantitative parameters and
hyperlinks." Reply Br. 4. However, Appellants do not identify any specific
rules in the claim that enable the computer to identify a comparable segment
13
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
of existing customers, let alone identify specific rules that act in the same
way as the specific rules enabling the computer in McRO to generate the
computer animated characters. We, therefore, find no evidence of record to
support the argument that the present situation is similar to the one in McRO,
where computers were unable to make certain subjective determinations, i.e.,
regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made
prior to the claimed invention by human animators.
Claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in
computer technological implementation or otherwise integrated into a
practical application and, thus, is directed to a judicial exception.
STEP 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the "additional limitations of the claim
includes [sic] an interactive website interface, a server, a remote user
interface device, and a processor." Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner
determines:
The interactive website interface is recited at a high level of
generality with the only required function of input the
information, which is a well-known routine function of
interfaces. The server and the remote user interface device are
recited at a high level of generality with the required functions of
receiving the customer information and transmitting the
displayable content over the Internet. Thus, the server and the
remote user interface device perform the functions of nothing
more than the generic computer functions of receiving or
14
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data. The processor is also recited at a high level of generality
with the required function of identifying information, executing
a predictive model to determine a quantitative product-related
parameter and generate the displayable content ....
Final Act. 4--5.
We agree with the Examiner's findings. Taking the claim elements
separately, the functions performed by the computer processor at each step
of the method are purely conventional. Using a server computer for
providing an interactive website interface, receiving data at the server from
another device, processing data using a processor, and transmitting and
displaying certain results, amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-
one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer
functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are
performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at
1354 (the "focus of the asserted claims ... is on collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,");
see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F .3d
1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of
the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be
achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming").
None of these activities are used in an unconventional manner nor do any
produce an unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they have invented
any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a
generic computer server to perform generic computer functions. Spec. 21
("Computer 110 may be any type of general purpose or specialized computer
system .... CPU 101 may be any general purpose processor"); see also
15
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
Spec. 22-23. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting
and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular
'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than
abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' method claim add nothing that is not already present when the
steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
modification, and transmission is equally generic and conventional or
otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F .3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for
exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an
abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We, thus,
conclude that the claim does not provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more
than the recited judicial exception.
Appellants argue that the Examiner "never analyzed all the limitations
as an ordered combination, which requires analysis of both the 'additional
limitations' and the claim limitations mischaracterized as 'abstract idea."'
Appeal Br. 12.
16
Appeal2018-000035
Application 14/012,586
We find this argument unpersuasive of error because the Examiner
does consider all of the limitations in the analysis of claim 1. See Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--10. Furthermore, Appellants merely argue, but fail to
provide persuasive evidence, that the Examiner mischaracterized any
particular limitation as an abstract idea or failed to consider any specific
limitation.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4--13 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17