Ex Parte Garti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13731118 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
131731,118
69054 7590
RECHES PA TENTS
211 North Union St.
Suite 100
FILING DATE
12/31/2012
04/03/2018
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Efraim Garti
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.
8292-USl 4589
EXAMINER
SCRUGGS, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
OREN@I-P.CO.IL
RECHES0@012.NET.IL
MAIL@I-P.CO.IL
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EFRAIM GARTI, !TAMAR COHEN, and OZ EISNER
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731, 118 1
Technology Center 3700
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Maytronics Ltd.
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 1 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A suction-powered pool cleaning robot comprising:
a fluid outlet, adapted for connection to a suction hose;
a fluid inlet, with a fluid path between the fluid inlet and
the fluid outlet;
a turbine at least partially disposed within the fluid path so
as to extract energy from flow of fluid through the fluid path;
an electrical generator for providing power thereto and
adapted to be driven by the turbine;
a sensor arranged to generate rotation information
indicative of a speed of rotation of the turbine; and
an electronic controller that is arranged to control an
operation of the suction powered pool cleaning robot in response
to at least the rotation information.
Rejections
I. Claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12, 13, 17-27, and 29 stand rejected under
(pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Minami2 and
Henkin '742 3.
II. Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, and Van Der Meijden4 .
2 Minami et al. (US 5,435,031, issued July 25, 1995) ("Minami").
3 Henkin et al. (US 6,652,742 B2, issued Nov. 25, 2003) ("Henkin '742").
4 Van Der Meijden et al. (US 2011/0314617 Al, publication Dec. 29, 2011)
("Van Der Meijden").
2
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
III. Claim 11 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, and Abdul5.
IV. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, Van Der Meijden, and
Albright6.
V. Claim 28 stands rejected under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, and Henkin '8867.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 8-10, and 12
The Appellants do not contest the rejection of independent claim 1
and dependent claims 8-10 and 12. See Br. 11. Thus, we summarily sustain
the rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein the electronic
controller is arranged to trigger a rotation of the suction-powered pool
cleaning robot if the rotation information indicates that the suction-powered
pool cleaning robot attempts to climb a wall of the pool." Id. at Claims App.
Notably, "the rotation information" of claim 2 refers back to claim 1, which
recites "sensor arranged to generate rotation information indicative of a
speed of rotation of the turbine." Id.
5 Abdul (US 3,319,093, issued May 9, 1967).
6 Albright (US 5,542,141, issued Aug. 6, 1996).
7 Henkin et al. (US 6,039,886 issued March 21, 2000) ("Henkin '886").
3
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
For the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Minami's pressure
sensors 108 and 310 and magnetic transducer 40b' are arranged to generate
rotation information indicative of the speed of rotation of rotatable impeller
(i.e., turbine) 40 and that these sensors correspond to the claimed "sensor" of
claim 1. See Final Act. 2 (citing Minami, col. 16, 11. 50-56). The Examiner
also finds Minami' s microprocessor 68b corresponds to the "electronic
controller" of claim 1. See id. at 2-3 (citing Minami, col. 16, 11. 57---68). For
the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner finds Minami's microprocessor 68b
reads on the electronic controller as required by claim 2. See id. at 3 (citing
Minami, col. 15, 11. 19-49, Figs. 15-17).
The Appellants argue that Minami's disclosure at column 15, lines
19-49 is directed to microprocessor 68b responding to pressure levels within
the assembly. Id. This argument addresses persuasively the Examiner's
application of Minami' s microprocessor 68b responding to pressure sensor
information, which is not rotation information. As for magnetic transducer
40b ',we agree with Examiner that Minami's magnetic transducer 40b'
corresponds to the "sensor" of claim 1. However, the Examiner fails to
cogently explain how the rotation information from magnetic transducer
40b ' is used by itself or with other information to indicate that Minami' s
pool cleaning robot is attempting to clean a wall of a pool.
Further, although microprocessor 68b executes instructions for turning
when the pool cleaning apparatus is reaches a non-horizontal surface (e.g.,
wall) based on signals from tilt sensor 120 (see Minami, col. 17, 11. 19-45,
col. 22, 11. 51-59), tilt sensor 120 is not "a sensor arranged to generate
rotation information indicative of a speed of rotation of the turbine," as
required by claim 1. Lastly, we note that the Examiner does not rely on
4
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
Henkin '7 42 to teach the sensor of claim 1 or the further limitation of
claim 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 as
unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites "a suction sensor that is
arranged to generate suction information indicative of suction applied via the
suction hose." Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds Minami's pressure
sensors 106, 108, 310 correspond to the "suction sensor" as required by
claim 4. See Final Act. 3 (citing Minami, Fig. 13a); Ans. 4 (citing Minami,
col. 13, 11. 1--47). The Appellants argue that "Minami measures the pressure
within the turbine assembly[,] but fails to teach or suggest a suction sensor
that is arranged to generate suction information indicative of suction applied
via the suction hose- as recited in claim 4." Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). The
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Appellants
fail to explain how Minami's pressure sensors lack information indicative of
suction applied via a suction hose. See Ans. 4. In other words, merely
because Minami' s pressure sensors measure the pressure within the turbine
assembly, such does not prevent the pressure sensors from providing
information indicative of suction applied via a suction hose. See also
Minami, col. 5, 11. 23-56, col. 13, 11. 5-8, 16-18. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable over Minami and
Henkin '742.
5
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
Dependent Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and recites "wherein the electrical
controller is arranged to update an expected inter-wall propagation rotational
value in response to the suction information." Br., Claims App. The
Examiner finds Minami discloses the foregoing recitation of claim 5. Final
Act. 4 (citing Minami, col. 13, 1. 1---col. 15, 1. 49), 12 (citing Minami, col. 21,
11. 55---63). The Appellants argue that Minami fails to disclose the additional
limitation of claim 5. Br. 14. The Appellants assert that Minami, at column
13, line 1 through column 15, line 49, teaches a turbine pressure sensor
assembly. Id. In response, the Examiner fails to cogently explain how
Minami microprocessor 68b responds to pressure or suction information "to
update an expected inter-wall propagation rotational value," as required by
claim 5. See Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner does not rely on Henkin '742 to
teach the foregoing limitation of claim 5. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Minami and
Henkin '742. We likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 6, which depends from claim 5 (Br., Claims App.).
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 4 and recites "wherein the electrical
controller is arranged to compare the suction information and the rotation
information and evaluate a status of the suction-powered pool cleaning robot
suction-powered pool cleaning robot based upon a result of the comparison."
Id. The Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Minami and
Henkin '7 42 fail to teach the added recitation of claim 7. Br. 16 (emphasis
omitted). The Appellants point out that Minami' s claim 19, which depends
6
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
from claim 1, and teaches at least one operation sensor and a housing
pressure sensor, but not a comparison of information from these sensors.
See id. The Appellants' argument is persuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner appears to take the position the Miami's microprocessor 68b
receives sensed suction information and rotation information, and in some
broad-yet unspecified - manner, may compare the information. See
Final Act. 4, 13; Ans. 6. To that end, the Examiner finds Minami's
microprocessor may use sensed suction information and rotation information
collectively to execute one of several programs. See Final Act. 13; Ans. 6.
However, the Examiner fails to cogently explain how Minami compares
sensed suction information to the rotation information, as required by
claim 7. Further, the Examiner does not rely on Henkin '7 42 to teach the
foregoing limitation of claim 7. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 13
The Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Minami and
Henkin '742 fail to teach, "wherein the cross flow turbine comprises
multiple blades ... wherein an inner edge of each blade is located at a
certain distance from the center of the turbine," as recited in claim 13.
Br. 18 (emphasis omitted); see, e.g., Spec. i-f 121, Fig. 19 (showing turbine
160 and blades 164). The Appellants' argument is persuasive of Examiner
error. The Appellants correctly point out the Minami's blades 40, as shown
in Figure 13, are connected to the center of the turbine. Br. 18 (annotating
Minami, Fig. 13). As such, we agree with the Appellants that the inner edge
of the blades are not "located at a certain distance from the center of the
7
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
turbine," as required by claim 13. See id. Further, the Examiner does not
rely on Henkin '742 to teach the foregoing limitation of claim 13. Thus, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over
Minami and Henkin '742.
Independent Claim 17 and Dependent Claims 19, 20, 25, and 26
Independent claim 1 7, among other things, recites "an electronic
controller that is arranged to learn propagation patterns of the suction-
powered pool cleaning robot and control an operation of the suction powered
pool cleaning robot in response to the sensor signals and the propagation
patterns." Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds Minami discloses the
foregoing recitation of claim 17. Final Act. 5 (citing Minami, col. 1, 11. 33-
39, col. 13, 1. 1---col. 15, 1. 49). The Appellants allege that Minami's
automatic pool cleaning "apparatus may react to the status sensed by the
status sensors," but does not teach "an electronic controller that is arranged
to learn propagation patterns of the suction-powered pool cleaning robot
and control an operation of the suction-powered pool cleaning robot in
response to the sensor signals and the propagation patterns." Br. 20. The
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error. In this case, the Appellants'
allegation merely points out what Minami teaches - particular to the
portion of Minami cited by the Examiner - and emphasizes language in
claim 17. See id. The Appellants do not cogently explain how the claimed
"an electronic controller" is distinct from microprocessor 68b of Minami' s
automatic pool cleaning apparatus, which executes instructions to update a
programmed cleaning path due to signals processed from its sensors. See
Ans. 7-8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
8
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
17 as unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742. We also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 19, 20, 25, and 26, which are not separately
argued.
Dependent Claim 18
Claim 18, depends from claim 1 7, and recites "wherein the electronic
controller is arranged to calculate and update the propagation patterns in
response to values of the sensor signals." Br., Claims App. The Examiner
finds Minami discloses the foregoing recitation of claim 1 7. Final Act. 6
(citing Minami, col. 1, 11. 33-39). The Appellants quote Minami's
column 1, lines 33-39, and allege that "Minami fails to teach or suggest
electronic controller is arranged to calculate and update the propagation
patterns in response to values of the sensor signals - as recited in claim 18."
Br. 22. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error. In this case,
the Appellants' allegation merely quotes the portion of Minami cited by the
Examiner and emphasizes language in claim 18. See id. The Appellants do
not cogently explain how the claimed "electronic controller" is distinct from
microprocessor 68b of Minami' s automatic pool cleaning apparatus. See
Ans. 8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 18 as
unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 21
Claim 21, depends from claim 1 7, and recites "wherein the
propagation patterns comprise an expected time required to cross between
walls of the pool." Br., Claims App. The Examiner finds Minami discloses
the foregoing recitation of claim 21. Final Act. 6 (citing Minami, col. 2,
9
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
11. 46-49). The Appellants argue that the length of time for Minami's
cleaning cycle refers to the duration of cleaning the entire pool. Br. 23. The
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. The Examiner explains correctly
that Minami teaches an expected time period for operating modes (e.g.,
propagation patterns) and that an operating mode described by Minami
refers to cleaning only the bottom surface of a pool (i.e., less than the entire
pool). See Ans. 9 (citing Minami, col. 2, 11. 37--49, col. 20, 11. 13-19). Thus,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 as unpatentable over
Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 22
Claim 22, depends from claim 17, and recites "wherein the
propagation patterns comprise an expected time required to rotate the pool
cleaning robot suction-powered pool cleaning robot." Br., Claims App. The
Examiner finds Minami discloses the foregoing recitation of claim 22. Final
Act. 6 (citing Minami, col. 2, 11. 46-49). The Appellants argue that the
length of time for Minami' s cleaning cycle refers to the duration of cleaning
the entire pool. Br. 24. As discussed above with regard to claim 21, the
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Additionally, the Examiner
responds to the Appellants' argument by explaining how Minami discloses
the foregoing recitation of claim 22. See Ans. 9-10. The Appellants do not
address the Examiner's explanation. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 22 as unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742.
10
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
Dependent Claim 2 3
The Appellants provide a separate heading for the rejection of
claim 23. See Br. 25. Claim 23 depends directly from claim 1 7 and recites
"wherein the propagation patterns comprise an expected time that passes
from an initial contact of pool cleaning robot suction-powered pool cleaning
robot with a wall of the pool to a propagation of the suction-powered pool
cleaning robot away from the wall." Id. at Claims App. The Appellants'
argument for the rejection of claim 23 is not directed to the above-recited
limitation. See id. at 26-27. Rather, the Appellants' argument is directed to
the subject matter of claim 22, i.e., "wherein the propagation patterns
comprise an expected time required to rotate the pool cleaning robot suction-
powered pool cleaning robot." Compare Br. 25 with id. at Claims App. As
such, the Appellants do not address the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable over
Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 2 4
Claim 24, depends from claim 1 7, and recites "wherein the electronic
controller is arranged to control the operation of the suction-powered pool
cleaning robot within a large range of turbine rotational speeds." Br.,
Claims App. The Examiner finds Minami discloses the foregoing recitation
of claim 24. Final Act. 7 (citing Minami, col. 16, 11. 50-56). Minami at
column 16, lines 50-56 describes:
Next, a preferred turbine speed sensor assembly will be
described with reference to FIG. 13. This assembly includes
permanent magnet 40a' fixedly mounted on rotatable impeller 40
and magnetic transducer 40b' (which can be a Hall effect
11
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
transducer) fixedly mounted within turbine assembly 12 and
electrically connected to processor 68b within control box
assembly 14.
The Appellants appear to reference Minami's disclosure at column 16, lines
50-56, and allege that "Minami fails to teach or suggest electronic
controller is arranged to control the operation of the suction-powered pool
cleaning robot within a large range of turbine rotational speeds- as recited
in claim 24." Br. 26. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error.
In this case, the Appellants' allegation merely references the cited disclosure
Minami and emphasizes language in claim 24. See id. The Appellants do
not cogently explain how the claimed "electronic controller" is distinct from
Minami's microprocessor 68b. Additionally, the Examiner explains that
Minami teaches "controlling the robot within a large range of rotational
turbine speeds depending on the particular number of revolutions selected
(at Y, see Column 16, Lines 50-68)" (Ans. 11) and, the Appellants do not
address the Examiner's explanation. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 24 as unpatentable over Minami and Henkin '742.
Dependent Claim 2 7
The Appellants provide a separate heading for the rejection of
claim 27. See Br. 27. Claim 27 depends directly from claim 1 and recites "a
housing and inclined fins that extend from a bottom surface of the housing."
Id. at Claims App. The Appellants' argument for the rejection of claim 27 is
effectively a duplicate of the Appellants' argument for rejection of claim 24.
See id. at 26-27. Claim 24 depends from independent claim 17 and does not
require a housing or inclined fins. See id. at Claims App. The Appellants do
12
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
not effectively address the Examiner's rejection of claim 27. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable over Minami
and Henkin '7 42.
Re} ection II
Dependent Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Br., Claims App. The additional
findings and reasoning particular to the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 do
not cure the deficiency of the rejection of claim 2. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable over Minami,
Henkin '7 42, and Van Der Meijden.
Dependent Claim 14
The Examiner finds that Van Der Meijden's shafts 116 or shaft 122
corresponds to the "flexible axle," as required by claim 14. Final Act. 8.
The Examiner does not rely on Minami or Henkin '742 to teach a flexible
axle.
The Appellants argue that Van Der Meijden fails to teach or suggest
that axles 116 and 122 are flexible. Br. 28-30. The Appellants point out
that Van Der Meijden does not describe axles 116 or 122 as flexible and
assert that the shape of axle 116 is maintained fixed during rotation of boss
134. Br. 28; see Van Der Meijden i-fi-137-38, Fig. 4. Moreover, the only
structures Van Der Meijden describes as having at least some flexibility are
blades 14. See Br. 28 (citing Van Der Meijden i127).
The Examiner construes the term "flexible" as a material property.
Ans. 12. In the context of the claim and the Specification, we agree with the
Examiner that "flexible" - in the claimed phrase "flexible axle" - refers to
13
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
a material property. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 22 (showing flexible axel 250).
The Examiner's only explanation why Van Der Meijden's shafts 116 and
122 are flexible is that they are not described as brittle and as such,
necessarily, must have some degree of flexibility. Here, the Examiner's
explanation relies on Van Der Meijden's silence concerning the material
property as evidence that the material used for axel 116 and 122 is flexible.
However, Van Der Meijden's silence as to the material property of axels 116
and 122 does not adequately support the finding that axels 116 or 122 are
flexible. Alternatively, the Examiner construes the term "flexible" as
"susceptible of modification or adaption." Ans. 12 (emphasis omitted)
(citing Dictionary.com). However, in the context of the claim and the
Specification, we fail to understand how one of ordinary skill in the art using
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term would understand
"flexible" by this this definition.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 as
unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, and Van Der Meijden.
Re} ection III
The Appellants argue that "Minami, Henkin[ '742] and Abdul, alone
or in combination, do not teach or suggest all the features of claim 11,"
which depends directly from claim 1. Br. 3 1. The Appellants support this
argument by solely focusing on Abdul's teaching and asserting that Abdul
fails to teach "wherein the generator is a three-phase brushless alternating
current generator and is wired to a voltage rectifier in a star configuration -
as recited in claim 11." Br. 31 (emphasis omitted). The Appellants'
argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner does not rely
14
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
on Abdul alone to teach the above-recited limitation of claim 11. Rather, the
Examiner relies on Henkin '742 to teach an electric brushless generator and
Abdul to teach a submerged cleaner with a voltage rectifier. Ans. 13; see
Final Act. 4, 8-9. Additionally, the Examiner determines that the use of a
three-phase generator and a voltage rectifier in a star configuration would
have been obvious as a "matter of design choice depending on the power
efficiency desired by the user." Ans. 13. As such, the Appellants' argument
is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742,
and Abdul.
Re} ection IV
Claims 15 and 16 depend directly and indirectly, respectively, from
claim 14. Br., Claims App. The Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 16
relies on the inadequately supported finding that Van Der Meijden's axles
116 and 122 are flexible. Supra. The errant finding is not cured by the
Examiner's additional findings and/or reasoning for the rejection of claims
15 and 16. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15
and 16 as unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, Van Der Meijden, and
Albright.
Rejection V
The Appellants do not contest the Examiner's rejection of claim 28,
which depends from claims 1 and 27. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 28.
15
Appeal2017-005009
Application 13/731,118
DECISION
We summarily AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1,
8-10, and 12 as unpatentable under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Minami and Henkin '7 42 (Rejection I).
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting, under (pre-AIA) 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 4 and 17-27 as unpatentable over Minami and
Henkin '742 (Rejection I); claim 11 as unpatentable over Minami,
Henkin '742, and Abdul (Rejection III); and, claim 28 as unpatentable over
Minami, Henkin '742, and "Henkin '886 (Rejection V).
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting, under (pre-AIA) 35
U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 2, 5-7, and 13 as unpatentable over Minami and
Henkin '742 (Rejection I); claims 3 and 14 as unpatentable over Minami,
Henkin '7 42, and Van Der Meijden (Rejection II); and, claim 15 and 16 as
unpatentable over Minami, Henkin '742, Van Der Meijden, and Albright
(Rejection IV).
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16