Ex Parte Isom

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

11923291 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/923,291 10/24/2007 Pamela K. Isom
30449 7590 04/02/2019
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
END920070340US 1 9331
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PAMELA K. ISOM 1
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
Technology Center 3600
Before MEREDITH C. PETRA VICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETRA VICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pamela K. Isom (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1 and 27--43. Claims 2-26 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
U.S. Patent Application No. 11/923,291 was the subject of previous
Appeal No. 2011-006520. In the previous appeal, the claims were rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. That rejection is no longer at issue, and the claims
have been substantially amended.
1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
SUMMARY OF DECISION2
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
THE INVENTION
"Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) describes the practice of
utilizing autonomous or semi-autonomous services that communicate with
one another by passing data and/or direction among themselves." Spec. ,r 2.
The invention is the creation of a graphical representation of activities of an
enterprise to aid in the implementation of a SOA. Id. ,r 4. Figure 2 is
reproduced below.
1NYE6TMENT Pt1lFIJP.MANCE (l-1)
---- ~-~----------~--~---- FUr© CCIIP'\HISG~-& EN.AEilllS iMi --~~-~~-------------~-------~-]
l-°H"d/i~offu.L> --1°::NCTIO/lAL/ ~== .----BUS-INE-SS-----, .---~. KE~i"r~ r--AC.-TOR-.S......, ~-PRl-()RIT_Y.....,
~/ ; -DOMAl'IS) fiJ'ICTIQNS PROGESSf:S !~~ HIGH
~~= l ACTORS OUT : U~) - MrnlL!~
[ OfSCOP"E_j iLJ-LOW
FIG. 2
2 Our Decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed Aug. 29, 2016), the Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br." filed
Dec. 19, 2016), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 31,
2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 26, 2016).
2
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
Figure 2 is an example of a graphical representation of a financial services
enterprise. Id. ,r,r 9, 3 21. Graphical representation 200 has a left vertical
axis having functional domains, such as account management 202, advice
204, and investment reporting 206. Id. ,r 21. "Each functional domain is a
consolidation of business functions and key processes that are performed in
the enterprise by the actors 208." Id. Along a top horizontal axis are job
titles of actors 208, such as financial advisor. Id. The enterprise's existing
business functions and existing key processes, are shown along the
horizontal axis. A business function is a base process, that "is a group of
logically connected tasks that are performed together to accomplish a
business objective of the enterprise." Id. In Figure 2, "Account View,"
"Account Transact," "Account Maintain," and "Billing" are business
functions. Id. ,r 25. A "key process is a mission critical activity of a
particular functional domain." Id. In Figure 2, "Enrollment," "Remit," and
"Account Opening" are key processes. Id. ,r 22.
Graphical representation 200 gives a single view of an enterprise's
business function, and an enterprise or evaluator can use it "to rapidly
determine which functional domains, utility functions, business functions,
and key processes are the best candidates for early conversion from an
existing ... non-SOA activity to a SOA activity." Id. ,r 28. "[R]ather than
actors in an enterprise performing tasks without consideration of what other
actors and/or departments are doing, the holistic approach for evaluating
3 Paragraph 9 of the Specification contains a typographical error. Paragraph
9 refers to Fig. 3 but describes Fig. 2. See Spec. ,r 21 ( describing Fig. 2 as
the graphical representation of an enterprise). Paragraph 8 contains a
corresponding typographical error.
3
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
functions and processes of an enterprise ... leads to a seamless transition
into an SOA environment." Id. ,r 31.
THE CLAIMS
Claims 1, 32, and 38 are independent and recite a corresponding
method, system, and computer-readable hardware storage device storing
computer program code. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for implementing a Service Oriented Architecture
(SOA) in an enterprise through the use of a graphical
representation of activities of the enterprise, the method
compnsmg:
receiving input data, by a data processing system via an
Input/Output (I/0) interface in communication with I/0 devices
used to provide the input data, wherein the input data comprises
a plurality of descriptive job titles of actors associated with the
enterprise, a plurality of functional domains of the enterprise, a
plurality of utility functions of the enterprise, key processes of
the enterprise, and business functions of the enterprise;
displaying, by the data processing system on a video
display coupled to the I/0 interface, a graph pertaining to non-
SOA system, wherein said displaying the graph comprising
displaying, in the graph, the received input data and relationships
pertaining to the input data, wherein the input data received via
the I/0 interface controls display of the relationships in the
graph, wherein the graph comprises (i) a left axis oriented in a
vertical direction and encompassing a left bounding side of the
graph, (ii) a right axis oriented in the vertical direction and
encompassing a right bounding side of the graph, (iii) a top axis
oriented in a horizontal direction orthogonal to the vertical
direction and encompassing a top bounding side of the graph, and
(iv) a bottom axis oriented in the horizontal direction and
encompassing a bottom bounding side of the graph, and wherein
said displaying the graph comprises:
4
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
determining and displaying the plurality of descriptive job
titles of actors associated with the enterprise along the top axis,
determining and displaying the plurality of functional
domains of the enterprise along the left axis,
determining and displaying the plurality of utility
functions of the enterprise along the right axis, and
determining and displaying the key processes of the
enterprise and the business functions of the enterprise within the
graph between the top axis and the bottom axis and oriented in
the horizontal direction, wherein the displayed functional
domains consolidate the displayed business functions and the
displayed key processes performed in the enterprise by the
actors, wherein each business function is a group of logically
connected tasks performed together to accomplish a business
objective of the enterprise, wherein each key process is a mission
critical activity of a particularized functional domain, wherein
each key function comprises multiple business functions of the
displayed business functions, wherein each business function is
a base process that cannot be decomposed, and wherein each key
process can be decomposed into the multiple business functions,
wherein the displayed graph depicts the relationships
comprising: (i) each utility function provides utility functionality
for at least one functional domain displayed along the left axis,
wherein a first utility function of the displayed utility functions
provides utility functionality for all functional domains displayed
along the left axis, (ii) each functional domain along the left axis
encompasses all key processes and business functions displayed
between the left axis and the right axis and within the total extent
of the functional domain along the left axis, (iii) each key process
and each business function displayed between the left axis and
the right axis is comprised by one and only one displayed
functional domain displayed along the left axis, (iv) each actor
displayed along the top axis independently performs a process
selected from the group consisting of at least one displayed key
process of the displayed key processes displayed between the left
axis and the right axis and directly below the actor displayed
along the top axis, at least on displayed business function of the
displayed business functions displayed between the left axis and
5
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
the right axis and directly below the actor displayed along the top
axis, and combinations thereof, wherein a first actor of the
displayed actors displayed along the top axis performs a
functionality of all of said displayed key processes displayed
between the left axis and the right axis and directly below the
first actor displayed along the top axis and all of said displayed
business functions displayed between the left axis and the right
axis and directly below the first actor displayed along the top
axis, and ( v) each key process and each business function
displayed between the left axis and the right axis is performed by
at least one actor of the displayed actors displayed along the top
axis, wherein a first business function of the displayed business
functions displayed between the left axis and the right axis is
performed by all actors of the displayed actors displayed along
the top axis;
receiving, by the data processing system via the I/0
interface, relative priorities comprising a relative priority of each
functional domain, a relative priority of each utility function, a
relative priority of each key process, and a relative priority of
each business function, wherein each said relative priority is
independently selected from the group consisting of L, M, and
H, wherein H and M denote a higher relative priority than M and
L, respectively;
after said displaying the graph and said receiving the
relative priorities, replacing, by the data processing system, said
business functions, said key processes, said functional domains,
and said utility functions to respective reusable business
functions, key processes, functional domains, and utility
functions in a SOA system, wherein said replacing is performed
in conformity with said relationships depicted in the graph and
in conformity with at least one relative priority of the receive[ d]
relative priorities which determines an order in which the
functional domains are replaced; and
seamlessly transitioning, by the data processing system, to
a SOA environment,
6
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
wherein the data processing system performs said
receiving input data, said displaying the graph, said receiving
relative priorities, and said replacing with special purpose
hardware particularized to said method.
THE REJECTI0N4
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 27--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility
The Examiner and Appellant dispute whether claims 1 and 27--43
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are being directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea.
The rejection under § 101 must fall, proforma, because, for the
reasons set forth below in the new ground of rejection, it is necessarily based
upon a speculative assumption as to the meaning of the claims. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962) (addressing an obviousness
rejection). Although "claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite" to
an analysis under § 101, "a full understanding of the basic character of the
claimed subject matter" is, nevertheless, needed to evaluate questions of
subject-matter eligibility. Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of
Canada (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See also McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102 set
forth in the Final Office Action. See June 23, 2016 Advisory Action Before
the Filing of an Appeal Brief; App. Br. 34.
7
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
("As an initial matter, we note that, in this case, claim construction is helpful
to resolve the question of patentability under § 101.") As explained below,
the limitation "seamlessly transitioning, by the data processing system, to a
SOA environment" is unclear and not adequately supported by the
Specification. This limitation is at the heart of the patent eligibility dispute
between the Examiner and Appellant. See, e.g., App. Br. 19--20; Reply Br.
2-3; Ans. 3--4, 6-7.
Notwithstanding the merits of the rejection based upon§ 101, we pro
forma reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 27--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Written Description
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 27--43 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, 5 for failing to satisfy the written description
requirement.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562---63 (Fed. Cir.
1991 ). Specifically, to have "possession," the specification must describe
the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary
skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed
5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) ("AIA"), amended 35 U.S.C. § 112. Because the application has an
effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 112.
8
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
invention. Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1562-63; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly
& Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
Further, claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement
when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the
specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the
claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d 1349. For software, this can occur when
the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not
explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. It is not enough that
one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function
because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve
the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g.,
Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-83 (Fed.
Cir. 2015); Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim
Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57 (Jan. 7,
2019).
Independent claim 1 recites "[a] method for implementing a Service
Oriented Architecture (SOA) in an enterprise through the use of a graphical
representation of activities of the enterprise." Independent claim 32 recites
"[a] data processing system" that stores computer program codes, which
when executed, cause the data processing system to perform the method of
claim 1. Independent claim 38 recites "[a] computer-readable hardware
storage device storing computer program codes, which when executed, cause
a data processing system to perform the method of claim 1." The method of
claim 1 includes the step of "seamlessly transitioning, by the data processing
system, to a SOA environment" ( emphasis added).
9
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
The Specification discloses a data processing system. See, e.g., Spec.
,r 13. The data processing system includes Business Transformation
Analysis and Modeling Method Logic ("BT AMML") program 148 that is
used to create the graphical representation depicted in Figure 2. Id. pg. 7,
,r 1. 6 Figure 3 is reproduced below.
CREATE A GRfoPH Wm, A VERTIGAl AXIS AND A HCR!ZONT.AL AXIS r~XJ4
pmcu~.ENT OESCRIPTWE JOS TITLES Cf ACTORS ALCNG TflE l·IOR!ZC~TiP~XIS r30El
DOC1.M:.NT n!STlNG &JSlr{SS FUNCTlONS MD EXISTING _,..310
KEY PROCESSES ALO~ Tit 1-lORiZONT.~ AXiS
~------·--------"'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""
PRlffilTIZE fU<'CTION,Dl DOMft.lNS FOR IMPLEMENTING SOA ·· 312
-----------------·· t
!MPLEMENT SOA IN PRKJRITY FlliCTIONAL DOMAIN BY REPLACING EXISTING
BUSlNESS FUf\'CTlDNS, KEY PROCESSES AND UTILITY fl.\"'lCTIONS WJH REUSABLE r 314
BUSINESS FllNCTiONS, ;{[Y PROCESSES AND UTILITY fU!\tTIONS FROM THE SOA
(. EM) . }···316
F!G.3
Figure 3 depicts a flow-chart of the steps taken by BT AMML program 148.
Id. ,r 8, 29. Steps 304--310 are used to create and document elements of the
graphical representations, and step 312 to prioritize those elements. Id. ,r,r
29-30. Step 314, the last step, replaces existing elements with elements
from the SOA. Id. ,r 30. The Specification discloses that the flow-chart
6 The Specification contains two paragraphs numbered 1. We refer to
paragraph 1 that is between paragraphs 19 and 21 on page 7.
10
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
illustrates the systems and computer programs of the invention. Id. ,r 33.
Figure 3 's steps 304--314 correspond to the claimed steps of displaying,
receiving relative priorities, and replacing. Figure 3 's flow chart does not
include a step corresponding to the claimed seamlessly transitioning to an
SOA environment.
Appellant points to the Specification's paragraph 31 as providing
written description support for this limitation. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 7.
There, the Specification states:
As described herein, the process described ( and
particularly as associated with [the] BTAMML 148) turns
vertical thinking and communications into horizontal solutions.
That is, rather than actors in an enterprise performing tasks
without consideration of what other actors and/ or departments
are doing, the holistic approach for evaluating functions and
processes of an enterprise described herein leads to a seamless
transition into an SOA environment. Thus, instead of the
enterprise evaluating what individual actors are doing, the
enterprise evaluates what functional domains are doing. The
presently described methodology and model allows enterprises
to see where they conduct similar processes, thus identifying
high level business processes that may require further
decomposition.
Spec. ,r 31 ( emphasis added). As can be seen from the above, paragraph 31
broadly discloses an enterprise seamlessly transitioning to an SOA
environment, but does not disclose the data processing system doing the
seamless transition. The Specification does not mention such a seamless
transition elsewhere. It discloses using the graphical representation "in
conversion to an SOA environment," but not that the graphical
representation is used by the data processing system for the conversion. Id.
11
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
,r 29. Indeed, by its express terms, the Specification does not explicitly
identify any system that implements the seamless transition.
In any event, even if we were to assume that the Specification
discloses that a data processing system does the seamless transition,
seamlessly transitioning to an SOA environment is merely a desired result.
"The written description requirement is not met if the specification merely
describes a 'desired result."' Vasudevan, 782 F .3d at 682 ( quoting Ari ad,
598 F.3d at 1349). "The more telling question is whether the specification
shows possession by the inventor of how [the claimed function] is
achieved." Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 683. The Specification does not disclose
how the data processing system seamlessly transitions the enterprise to a
SOA environment. While this is not applicable to every functional result,
we find that how the data processing system seamlessly transitions the
enterprise to a SOA environment is one that squarely falls within the four
comers of Vasudevan.
Given the above and the remainder of the Specification, we find that
the Specification discloses a data processing system that is used to create a
graphical representation of an enterprise in an SOA environment, but does
not disclose the data processing system using the graphical representation or
any other method to seamlessly transition the enterprise to an SOA
environment.
Finally, we note that, for example, the preamble of claim 1 recites "[a]
method for implementing a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) in an
enterprise through the use of a graphical representation of activities of the
enterprise." The word "implementing" in the preamble is given a special
meaning in the Specification. The Specification states, "the term
12
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
'implementing' is understood to encompass the process of identifying likely
methods and processes for conversion to SOA, as well as establishing a plan
for such an SOA conversion." Spec. ,r 32. Thus, the preamble does not
require putting into effect a SOA environment in the enterprise.
Claims 1 and 27--43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
Independent claims 1, 32, and 3 8 for the reasons above, and the dependent
claims on account of their dependency therefrom.
Enablement
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 27--43 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to enable one of ordinary skill in
the art to make or use the claimed invention.
"The written description requirement is separate and distinct from the
enablement requirement." MPEP § 2161(II) (citingAriad 598 F.3d at 1341).
A specification must "enable" a person of skill in the art
to make and use the claimed invention. Enablement is a legal
question based on underlying factual determinations. A claim is
sufficiently enabled even if "a considerable amount of
experimentation" is necessary, so long as the experimentation "is
merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a
reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in
which the experimentation should proceed." On the other hand,
if "undue experimentation" is needed, the claims are invalid. Id.
In detennining whether experimentation is undue, "Wands lists a
number of factors to consider: "They include (1) the quantity of
experimentation necessary, (2) the arnount of direction or
guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working
examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior
art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability
or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims."
13
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 684 (emphasis added; citations omitted; quoting In
re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Factors 2 and 3 weigh
greatly here, as the Specification provides no direction, guidance, or working
examples of seamlessly transitioning, by the data processing system, to a
SOA environment. As explained above, the Specification does not disclose
the data processing system that seamlessly transitions the enterprise to a
SOA environment, much less how to make or use the data processing system
to do such. Regardless of the level of ordinary skiU in the art, the breadth of
the claims combined with the lack of any meaningful description means that
the person of ordinary skill in the art would have to raise to the level of an
inventor herself in order to make or use the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 27--43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph for failing to satisfy the written description requirement.
Independent claims 1, 32, and 3 8 for the reasons above, and the dependent
claims on account of their dependency therefrom.
Indefiniteness
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 27--43 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant
regards as the invention. These claims contain subject matter that is unclear.
Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB
Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In light of the inconsistency between the claims and
the Specification as to whether and how an enterprise environment is
seamlessly transitioned to an SOA environment by the data processing
14
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
system, the scope of claims 1 and 27--43 is unclear. See, e.g., In re Cohn,
438 F.2d 989, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1971) (sustaining a rejection of claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, where the claims are inherently inconsistent
with the specification). Consequently, claims 1 and 27--43 are indefinite and
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Independent claims 1,
32, and 38 for the reasons above, and the dependent claims on account of
their dependency therefrom.
Dependent Claims Fail to Further Limit
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 27, 28, 33, 34, 39, and
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent
form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it
depends. Dependent claims 27, 28, 33, 34, 39, and 40 recite verbatim a
limitation recited by independent claims 1, 32, and 38, from which they
depend. For example, claim 27 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein
the data processing system performs said receiving input data, said
displaying the graph, said receiving relative priorities, and said replacing,
with the special purpose hardware particularized to said method." Claim 1
recites this limitation verbatim.
Claims 27, 28, 33, 34, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further
limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
DECISION
We proforma REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 27--43 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 and enter NEW GROUNDS of rejection.
15
Appeal2017-003420
Application 11/923,291
This Decision contains NEW GROUNDS of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) (2008). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 4I.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 prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
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).
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).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
16