Ex Parte Schweitzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

10952668 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

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.
10/952,668 09/28/2004 Michael Schweitzer 6741P004 9643
45062 7590 08/28/2012
SAP/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
SINGH, GURKANWALJIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL SCHWEITZER, EDWARD W. HUBER, MARION S.
MCDONALD, MICHAEL J. MONSON, LARRY M. NEWBANKS,
GUENTHER J. BAERMANN, MICHAEL J. CZACH, ERIC P. EICH,
HANS SCHMITZ, BRIAN R. TAYLOR, MARK FISHWICK, and RYAN
G. MATTHEWS
____________

Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-26. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The invention relates to selection of efficient quantities for
distribution in a supply network (para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below,
is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a database;
a tolerance interval generator to calculate a tolerance
interval for each target location and to store the tolerance
interval in the database; and
a rounder to serially round quantities requested by the
target locations each to a shipping quantity having efficient
transportation characteristics.

Claims 1-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 23-25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite;
claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-13, 15-20, and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0042756 A1,
pub. Apr. 11, 2002; hereinafter “Kumar”); claim 3 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar in view of Abendroth (US Pub.
No. 2002/0087371 A1, pub. Jul. 4, 2002; hereinafter “Abendroth”); claim 9
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar in view of
Mitsukuni et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0204463 A1, pub. Oct. 30, 2003;
hereinafter “Mitsukuni”); and claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar in view of Stockwell et al. (US Pub.

1 The Examiner’s Answer makes no mention of the non-statutory subject
matter rejection of claims 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and has previously
indicated that this rejection has been withdrawn (Interview Summary,
PTOL-413, mailed April 28, 2010).
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

3
No. 2004/0172344 A1, pub. Sep. 2, 2004; hereinafter “Stockwell”).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND of rejection
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

ISSUES
Whether claims 1-5 are properly rejected as being directed to
unpatentable subject matter based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Whether claims 23-25 are properly rejected based on 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
The issue turns on whether there is sufficient disclosure of structure,
material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
Whether independent claims 6, 16, and 23 are properly rejected based
on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar.
Whether dependent claims 7-15, 17-22, and 24-26 are properly
rejected based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar.
Whether independent claim 1 is properly rejected based on 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumar. The issue turns on whether the
Examiner made a finding to address the limitation of a rounder to serially
round quantities requested by the target locations.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Definitions
FF1. Serial is defined as sequential and as operating on items of
information, instructions, etc., in the order in which they occur.
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

4
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/serial (last accessed: July 24, 2012).
FF2. Rounding is defined as the process of replacing a number by
another number of approximately the same value but having fewer digits.
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rounding (last accessed: July 24,
2012).

Specification
FF3. The Specification discloses that “a database 601 coupled to the
source node 600 is used to store a tolerance interval definition[.] The
database 601 may also be used to store the pack stages” (para. [0040]).
FF4. The Specification discloses that the “[r]ounding node 600
includes a target location sequencer 602, a tolerance interval generator 604
and desired quantities rounder 606. These may be instantiated as software
routines residing in any computer readable storage medium, including
volatile and non-volatile memory, magnetic media, optical media, etc.”
(para. [0038]).
FF5. The Specification discloses various ways in which target
location sequencing may be established:
In one embodiment, the sequence of handling target
locations may be substantially random. It is preferred to
establish the order based on various criteria. Among the
criteria, which may be used in establishing a sequence, are
forecast demand, lead-time to delivery, planned safety stock at
target, order type, demand per day, months of supply (number
of months that can be covered by the current quantity on hand)
etc. For example, longer lead-time may be given higher priority
over shorter lead-time, back orders may be given higher priority
than other types of orders. In some embodiments, combinations
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

5
of such criteria are used as a criterion, e.g., safety stock divided
by forecast. In one embodiment, the criteria are ranked in a
hierarchical order and the priority of a target location is
discerned by comparing the target locations applying each
criteria in turn until any ties are broken. In another
embodiment, the sequence is predefined and does not vary with
changes in such criteria.
(para. [0017]).
FF6. The Specification discloses that the request rounder 606
calculates a rounded value serially for the target locations to improve
transportation and handling efficiencies (para. [0040]).

Kumar
FF7. LFM 22 may be responsible for computing properly formed
component quotations or component promises, handling the resulting
acceptances, and ensuring that the corresponding material or capacity is
indeed reserved. In one embodiment, LFM 22 may have to do little but
translate information communicated between the interface of fulfillment
server 16 and associated ATP server 14. In other embodiments, such as
where the ATP server 14 is not designed to function as part of a larger
system, LFM 22 may need to perform substantial computation or other
manipulation of information. LFM 22 may even need to perform some of
the ATP functionality if it is interacting with a system that is not designed
for ATP, or if interacting with a slower system where the activity of the
system needs to be circumvented where possible. In yet another
embodiment, a LFM 22 may operate using information stored in a local
database without communicating with an associated ATP server 14, or a
LFM 22 could be omitted between an ATP server 14 and fulfillment server
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

6
16. ATP servers 14 and/or LFMs 22 may process the component ATP
requests from fulfillment server 16 in a synchronous or an asynchronous
manner. In a synchronous manner, ATP servers 14 and/or LFMs 22 may
provide component quotations to fulfillment server 16 in substantially real
time, allowing for more rapid production of quotations for client 12 (para.
[0025]).
FF8. Delivery characteristics include (3) ship-to address,(8) request
quantity – quantity or quantity range of product requested, which must equal
combined delivery quantities if multiple request line-item deliveries are
defined, (9) request date – date or date range product is required to arrive at
customer ship-to location, which user may override if there are multiple
request line-item deliveries for the request line-item, (11) line-item grouping
– relates multiple request line-items as logical grouping for delivery
coordination, where grouping may represent configuration, bundled package
of products, set of items that must ship together, or any other suitable
grouping, (17) lot size/multiple – defaulted from basic product definition,
which user may be able to selectively override and fulfillment server 16 may
use in processing request line-item such that ATP server response quantities
are rounded accordingly, (18) ship complete, and (20) ship on-time (para.
[0057]).
FF9. If the ATP server response is satisfactory in one or more ways
(based on the products, lead times, or prices, singly or in any combination)
then fulfillment server 16 may perform additional functions before
generating quotation 36 for communication to client 12. For example, client
12 may require calculation of pricing, taxes, freight, or delivery schedule.
Depending on the implementation, this may be accomplished using
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

7
specialized routines or may involve incorporation of one or more
background planning processes that rely on, for example, transportation and
logistics planning packages. The use of such “auxiliary” processes may be
optionally delayed until client 12 confirms all or a part of quotation 36 (para.
[0091]).

ANALYSIS
101 Rejection
Claims 1-5 are directed to an apparatus comprising a database, a
tolerance interval generator, and a rounder. Appellants admit that a
tolerance interval generator and a rounder may be instantiated as software
routines residing in any computer readable storage medium (FF4).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1-5 recite non-
statutory software per se.

112 Rejection
Appellants and the Examiner agree that claims 23-25 recite means-
plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (Exam’r’s
Ans. 4-7; App. Br.10-11; Reply Br. 3-4). Upon invoking the means-plus-
function language, the applicant is required to “set forth in the specification
an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an
applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect
failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required
by the second paragraph of section 112.” In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed.
Cir. 1994)). Furthermore, “in a means-plus-function claim ‘in which the
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

8
disclosed structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry
out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer,
but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the
disclosed algorithm.’” Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game
Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing WMS Gaming, Inc. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
We agree that Appellants have disclosed specific algorithms to
perform the defining of tolerance intervals and rounding requested quantities
limitations in Fig. 4 and 5 and paragraphs [0020]-[0038] of the Specification
(App. Br. 10-11). We also agree with Appellants that, even without figures
or a flowchart, paragraphs [0017] and [0038] provide, in prose, adequate
algorithmic support for the means for arranging target locations in a
sequence (FF5; App. Br. 11). We note that “Applicant may express the
algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula,
in prose, in a flow chart, or ‘in any other manner that provides sufficient
structure.’” See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining
Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7168 (February 9, 2011); see also Intel
Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Paragraph
[0017] in particular provides sufficient criteria in prose2 for one of ordinary
skill to implement, on a computer, an algorithm for arranging target
locations in a sequence based on such criteria, as recited in independent
claim 23. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

2 For example, “forecast demand, lead-time to delivery, planned safety stock
at target, order type, demand per day, months of supply.”
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

9

103(a) Rejection of Claims 6 and 16
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that
independent claim 6 is unpatentable over Kumar (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br.
4-5). Regarding Appellants’ argument that “Kumar is unrelated to
transportation planning [as recited in independent claim 6, because] Kumar
is directed to available to promise (ATP) analysis, which occurs at a
fundamentally different place in the supply chain” (App. Br. 11-12; Reply
Br. 4-5), such an aspect is not set forth in the claims. See CollegeNet, Inc. v.
ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the
specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations
from the specification will not be imported into the claims). Independent
claim 6 only recites rounding of shipping quantities, which can occur outside
of the transportation planning context, such as in item (17) of paragraph
[0057] of Kumar. Moreover, Kumar discloses creating efficiencies in
delivery characteristics, and that such efficiencies are desirable in
transportation planning, which would include rounding of shipping
quantities (FF8, FF9).
Appellants also assert that because “the Examiner alleges that an
LFM’s of Kumar are analogous to what the Appellants call the ‘target
locations,’” and “[t]here is no mention of defining a tolerance interval for an
LFM,” that Kumar does not disclose “the tolerance interval of the target
location,” as recited independent claim 6 (App. Br. 12). However, the
tolerance level in Kumar is for the ship to location for an order or the
supplier’s location (paras. [0033], [0051], [0062]-[0065]), either of which
would correspond to the recited “target location.”
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

10
Additionally, Appellants assert Kumar does not disclose “that the
rounding be to shipping quantities having efficient transportation
characteristics” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4-5). However, paragraph [0032] of
Kumar discloses rounding lot sizes/multiple, which would affect
transportation characteristics (Exam’r’s Ans. 9, 20-23). And absent any
definition as to what is considered “efficient” in this context, we find that
anything having an effect on transportation characteristics is “efficient.” See
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“[d]uring examination [of a patent application, a pending claim is] given
[the] broadest reasonable [construction] consistent with the specification,
and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”) (internal citation
and quotations omitted).
This analysis is also applicable to the corresponding arguments set
forth by Appellants with respect to independent claim 16.

103(a) Rejection of Claim 23
Appellants listed claim 23 as being a dependent claim (App. Br. 13),
however we believe this to be in error, since claim 23 is an independent
claim. Additionally, Appellants do not present any separate arguments
regarding claim 23. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claim 23.

103(a) Rejection of Claims 7-9, 13-15, 17-20, and 22
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that claim 7 is
unpatentable over Kumar (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6). The Examiner
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

11
asserts that paragraph [0066] and claim 8 of Kumar disclose an ATP server
sending requests to LFM servers in sequence, and that this corresponds to
“arranging target locations in a sequence,” as recited in dependent claim 7
(Exam’r’s Ans. 10, 27-29). However, any sequential arrangements
notwithstanding, it is unclear how the LFMs of Kumar (FF7) correspond to
the recited “target locations.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection
of claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-9 and 13-15. Since this analysis is
also applicable to the corresponding arguments set forth by Appellants with
respect to dependent claim 17, we will also not sustain the rejection of claim
17 and its dependent claims 18-20 and 22.

103(a) Rejection of Claim 10
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that dependent
claim 10 is unpatentable over Kumar. Appellants assert that Kumar does not
disclose defining a tolerance interval by finding an upper and lower bound
for distribution to each target location (App. Br. 14). However, paragraphs
[0033] and [0062] of Kumar disclose the fulfillment server maintaining
information regarding suppliers including the minimum and maximum order
quantity requirements specified by the suppliers, which would correspond to
the recited upper and lower bound for distribution to each target location
(Exam’r’s Ans. 11-12). Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 10.

103(a) Rejection of Claims 11 and 12
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that claims 11 and
12 are unpatentable over Kumar (App. Br. 14). Dependent claims 11 and 12
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

12
recite specific methods of finding lower and upper bounds. While the cited
portions of Kumar disclose a required quantity, a maximum percentage
variance, and maximum and minimum quantities that are acceptable
(Exam’r’s Ans. 12), they do not disclose the recited specific methods of
finding lower and upper bounds. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 11 and 12.

103(a) Rejection of Claim 25
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that dependent
claim 25 is unpatentable over Kumar. Appellants assert that Kumar does not
disclose “the means for rounding compris[ing] a software module having no
optimization loops,” as recited in dependent claim 25 (App. Br. 15).
However, paragraph [0119] of Kumar discloses that delivery coordination
may be accomplished using a simple table-driven technique that links
products, locations, and standard lead times, none of which use optimization
loops (Exam’r’s Ans. 13).

Claims 24 and 26
Appellants do not present any separate arguments regarding claim 24
and 26. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 24
and 26.

Claim 21
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Kumar and Stockwell renders obvious dependent claim 21
(App. Br. 16). Appellants assert
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

13
[t]he Examiner's analysis falls far short of what is required to
make it a prima facie case of obviousness. Merely quoting the
Appellants' claim language and alleging it is disclosed falls far
short of that which is required. In this example, the Examiner
asserts the claim language is disclosed “throughout the
reference” and cites six paragraphs as examples. However,
Appellants review of these paragraphs has failed to reveal any
teaching of what Appellants claim.
(App. Br. 16). Claim 21 recites
finding a set of pack stages having a quantity that falls
within the tolerance interval for a current target location, the set
having a minimum number of higher value pack stages;
subtracting the quantity from a then available quantity;
and
repeating the finding and subtracting for a next target
location until a quantity for each target location is found.
The Examiner admits that “Kumar does not explicitly disclose subtracting
the quantity from a then available quantity; and repeating the finding and
subtracting for a next target location until a quantity for each target location
is found,” however, the Examiner then cites several paragraphs in Stockwell
for disclosing these aspects (Exam’r’s Ans. 15-16). While we agree that the
Examiner perhaps should have provided a more detailed analysis as to how
Stockwell corresponded to the claimed aspects, in the end, we find that
paragraph [0026] of Stockwell discloses an iterative subtraction process
where lot sizes are determined for a plurality of customer locations, which is
sufficient to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for the
aforementioned aspects of claim 21.

103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-5
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

14
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that independent
claim 1 is unpatentable over Kumar. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the
instant case, we find that the Examiner has not made any factual finding as
to the limitation of “serially round” as recited in claim 1. Indeed, the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 (Exam’r’s Ans. 8-9, 19-23)
does not even mention the word “serially.” We agree with Appellants that
the express language of claim 1 requires that the rounding occur serially, and
that the Examiner’s analysis does not address this particular feature (App.
Br. 12). Since the Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness is not
supported by facts, we find that it cannot stand. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (holding that “[t]he legal conclusion of
obviousness must be supported by facts. Where the legal conclusion is not
supported by facts it cannot stand”). Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims 2-5. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (if an independent claim is nonobvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is nonobvious).

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We find that Appellants’ Specification does not provide a
lexicographic definition of the phrase “serially round,” as used in claims 1-5
(FF6). The dictionary definition of “serial” refers to sequential and
operating on items in the order in which they occur (FF1). Additionally, the
dictionary definition of “rounding” refers to the process of replacing a
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

15
number by another number of approximately the same value but having
fewer digits (FF2). Therefore, we construe serial rounding to mean
sequentially rounding the quantities in each order.
We enter the following new ground of rejection for claim 1 under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kumar and reads, with corresponding mapped findings, as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a database [i.e., a database (Abs.; para. [0010])];
a tolerance interval generator to calculate a tolerance interval
for each target location [i.e., determining which if any
alternates/substitutes and the amount of variance from a requested
quantity that will be tolerated by each supplier to whom the order is
being shipped (para. [0063]-[0065], [0081])] and to store the tolerance
interval in the database [i.e., the fulfillment server may maintain such
information about the suppliers (para. [0033])]; and
a rounder to round quantities requested by the target locations
each to a shipping quantity having efficient transportation
characteristics [i.e., quotations may be rounded based on the required
lot size or multiple for given products; a user may selectively override
the lot size/multiple, and the ATP server response quantities are
rounded accordingly; additional functions before generating the
quotation for example related to freight or delivery schedule
determination may be accomplished using specialized routines and
transportation and logistics planning packages (paras. [0032], [0057],
[0091])].
Kumar does not explicitly disclose that the rounding of quantities
takes place serially. However, applying rationale from KSR, where there is a
design need to solve a problem (i.e., satisfying a supplier’s request to receive
the delivery of a given lot size/multiple of certain line items in a particular
shipment), and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions
(i.e., the option of rounding quantities of items serially for each order,
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

16
rounding the total quantity cumulatively across multiple orders, and
rounding to a whole number), one of ordinary skill in the art would have a
good reason to pursue one of these options that are within their technical
grasp. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Accordingly, we find that it would have been obvious to try the option of
rounding the quantities serially for each given order to optimize each order
on an individual basis.
For the arguments other than “serially round” set forth by Appellants
with respect to independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12), we adopt our analysis
above concerning the obviousness rejection of independent claims 6 and 16.
We have entered the new grounds only for independent claim 1, and
leave it to the Examiner to determine whether to reject dependent claims 2-5
in view of this reference alone or in combination with other newly found or
previously cited references.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is REVERSED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-20,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6, 10, 16, 21, and 23-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
We newly reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-003283
Application 10/952,668

17
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .

(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)(1)(iv).

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

msc