Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020002495 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

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.
15/587,496 05/05/2017 Stuart C. Salter 83804519; 67186-361US1 9258
46442 7590 07/13/2021
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Ford
400 W. MAPLE RD.
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
AFRIFA-KYEI, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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):
cgolaw@yahoo.com
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STUART C. SALTER, ANNETTE LYNN HUEBNER,
PAUL KENNETH DELLOCK, PIETRO BUTTOLO,
and JIM J. SURMAN

Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford Global
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 1–33 in the Final Office Action (“Final
Act”) as follows:
1. Claims 1–3, 6–8, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Meinke et al. (US 2009/0257241 A1, published Oct. 15, 2009)
(“Meinke”) and Brubaker (US 2017/0200197 A1, published July 13, 2017)
(“Brubaker”). Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 4 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Meinke, Brubaker, and Brunell et al. (WO 2014/06570 A1, published May
1, 2014) (“Brunell”). Final Act. 4.
3. Claims 5 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Meinke, Brubaker, and Seder et al. (DE 102011114959 A1, published Apr.
12, 2012) (“Seder”). Final 4.
4. Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Meinke,
Brubaker, and Baur et al. (US 2008/0212189 A1, published Sept. 4, 2008)
(“Baur”). Final Act. 5
5. Claim 9 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Meinke, Brubaker, and Rathod (US 2017/0293950 A1, published Oct. 12,
2017) (“Rathod”). Final Act. 5.
6. Claims 10, 14, 15, 17–20, 22, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view of Meinke and Rathod. Final Act. 6.
7. Claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Meinke, Rathod, and Brubaker. Final Act. 9.
8. Claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Meinke,
Rathod, Brubaker, and Brunell. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

3
9. Claims 16, 23, 28, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Meinke, Rathod, and Seder. Final Act. 10.
10. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Meinke,
Rathod, and Brunell. Final Act. 11.
11. Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Meinke,
Brubaker, and Neitzke (US 2007/0054116 A1, published Mar. 8, 2007)
(“Neitzke”). Final Act. 11.
Claims 1 and 10 are representative and reproduced below (annotated
with bracketed numbers to refer to the limitations in the claims):
1. A method, comprising:
[1] providing a vehicle body member that comprises a
body panel or trim for the body panel;
[2] molding at least one badge to form part of the vehicle
body member, the badge comprising an applique that includes
one or more identification logos;
[3] forming the applique as part of a film;
[4] molding the film within a clear plastic material to
provide a molded part; and
[5] illuminating at least one identification logo based on
at least one of a driver or user input.

10. An apparatus, comprising:
a vehicle body member that comprises a body panel or
trim for the body panel;
at least one badge that identifies at least one service
provider, the badge comprising an applique that is mounted to
the vehicle body member, and wherein the badge is molded to
form part of the body panel and/or trim;
at least one first wireless communication device
associated with the badge or a driver;
at least one second wireless communication device
associated with a user; and
a control to control illumination of the badge based on
communication between the first and second wireless
communication devices.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

4
REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE AND BRUBAKER
Claim 1
The claim method comprises five steps. In the first step of the claim, a
vehicle body member is provided. The second step is “molding at least one
badge to form part of the vehicle body member.” Consistent with the
Specification, we interpret this second step to indicate that the badge itself is
molded and then incorporated into the vehicle body member (“to form part
of the vehicle body member”). See Spec. ¶¶ 46, 56.2
The badge comprises an “applique” with a logo that is formed as part
of a film (steps [2], [3] of claim 1). The film is molded “within a clear
plastic material to provide a molded part” (step [4]). In the last step [5] of
the claim, the driver or user illuminates the logo.
The Examiner rejected the claim based on Meinke and Brubaker.
Meinke describes a visual display “having indicia or other markings,” such
as a logo, “that are visually discernable only when an illumination source of
the display is in an illuminated state. The display can be integrated into a
variety of objects, including vehicular trim components.” Meinke ¶ 3.
The Examiner found that Meinke describes providing a vehicle body
member with a molded badge having an applique with a logo as in steps [1]
and [2] of the claim and illuminating it as in the last step [5]. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner found that Meinke does not describe forming the applique as
part of the film, but found that Brubaker describes a logo as part of the film.
Id. at 3. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of

2 There is no description in the Specification of the badge being molded with
the vehicle body member. Spec. ¶ 46. Rather, the Specification describes the
badge as being removable from the vehicle body member by attaching and
detaching it from an attachment interface. Spec. ¶¶ 53, 56.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

5
ordinary skill in the art to use a film with a logo as an applique “to
electronically increase or reduce the angles at which imagery can be seen
whilst the applique is secured onto the vehicle” as described by Brubaker.
Id.
Appellant contends Brubaker does not describe forming an applique
with a logo as part of a film for a molded part as required by steps [2]–[4] of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–4. Appellant argues that Brubaker, in the disclosure
cited by the Examiner, describes a film over a video display and not with an
applique having a logo molded into a badge recited in claim 1. Id. at 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not meet the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence3 that Meinke and Brubaker
make the subject matter of claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Brubaker describes a display on a vehicle that is configured to show
digital content. Brubaker, Abstract. The Examiner cites paragraph 76, 108,
and 300 of Brubaker as describing a film with a logo forming a continuously
molded part as part of the display on a vehicle, which the Examiner asserts
discloses the claimed limitation of an applique that includes a logo as part of
a film. Final Act. 3.
Paragraph 76 of a Brubaker describes a film over a digital display
surface, such as a video, “that can optically or electronically increase or
reduce the angles at which imagery can be seen.” As indicted by Appellant,

3 In making the determination of whether a claim is obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the Board applies the preponderance of the evidence
standard. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
PTO).
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

6
there is no disclosure in this paragraph that the film has a logo which is
formed as molded part as required by steps [2]–[4] of claim 1.
Paragraph 108 describes a “molded part,” but the molded part is not a
logo as in claim 1. It is a shock-mount that can “accommodate temperature
changes and part expansion, shock from door or tailgate slamming and
normal vibration” and which may be formed “as continuous molded part
completely surrounding the independently-sealed display component.”
Brubaker ¶ 108. The Examiner did not provide an adequate reason that
would have prompted the ordinary skilled worker to provide the film
described by Brubaker with a logo and then to make it a part of a molded
badge comprising the logo as required by claim 1.
Paragraph 300 of Brubaker, cited by the Examiner, describes “bus
passenger windows . . . covered with a plastic appliqué which, shows an
advertisement on the outside.” The Examiner did not provide a reason as to
why the skilled worker would use this appliqué as part of a film and then
“molding the film within a clear plastic material to provide a molded part” as
recited in [3] and [4] of claim 1.
Because the Examiner did not meet the burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that Meinke and Brubaker make the subject
matter of claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, specifically a
badge with film “molded within a clear plastic material,” we are compelled
to reverse the rejection of claim 1.

Claims 2–9, 24–26, and 31–33
Claims 2–9, 24–26, and 31–33 depend from claim 1 and incorporate
all of its limitations. Rejections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11 as they pertain to
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

7
these claims are reversed because the Examiner did not establish that the
additionally cited publications make-up for the deficiencies of Meinke and
Brubaker.

REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE AND RATHOD
Claim 10
Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus that comprises a vehicle body
member, at least one badge, first and second wireless communication
devices, and a control panel to control illumination of the badge. The control
panel controls “illumination of the badge based on communication between
the first and second wireless communication devices.” The badge comprises
an applique mounted to the body member. The badge is molded to form a
part of the vehicle body member. We interpreted the latter in view of the
Specification to mean that the badge is molded and incorporated into the
vehicle body member.
The Examiner found that Meinke describes a molded badge with an
applique as a logo. Final Act. 6. The Examiner found that Meinke does not
describe the wireless communication aspect of the claim, but cited Rathod to
meet this limitation. The Examiner found Rathod describes “at least one
wireless communication device associated with a driver, and a second
wireless communication device associated with a user such as smart phones
for ride request,” where the driver controls illumination of the badge based
on communication between the devices. Id. at 7. The Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Meinke and Rathod “in order to allow effectively allow business requests
and communications between users and drivers.” Id.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

8
Appellant argues that Rathod “simply discloses wireless
communication between two people” and does not suggest “that an
illumination source on a vehicle is controlled based on communication
between two different wireless communication devices.” Appeal Br. 8. For
this reason, Appellant contends that the claim is not obvious based on
Meinke and Rathod. Id.
We begin with the claim. Claim 10 recites:
at least one first wireless communication device
associated with the badge or a driver;
at least one second wireless communication device
associated with a user; and
a control to control illumination of the badge based on
communication between the first and second wireless
communication devices.

The Examiner found that Rathod describes a first wireless
communication device associated with a driver, one of the two alternatives
recited in claim 10 (“at least one first wireless communication device
associated with the badge or a driver”), and a second wireless device
associated with user, meeting the corresponding limitations of the claim.
Final Act. 6. Specifically, Rathod describes:
As an example, a user can view, search, match, select, compare,
negotiate, ask for more details or communicate one on-demand
services and service providers (e.g., cab, rickshaw, bus service,
. . . and various forms of travel . . .) using the system, and a
service provider can communicate with the system and/or the
user to search, match, select, indicate interest, like, confirm, ask
details, negotiate, compare to perform the service.
Rathod ¶ 29.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

9
Rathod further discloses:
In addition, as described herein, “customer devices” and
“provider devices” refer to computing devices that can
correspond to desktop computers, cellular or smartphones,
personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, tablet
devices, television (IP Television), etc., that can provide network
connectivity . . . .
Rathod ¶ 29.
Rathod also describes monitoring and communicating with drivers
through intermediaries or directly between a user and taxi, including
communicating the status of the service provider in terms of availability,
pickup, drop-off, etc. Rathod ¶¶ 128–132. Therefore, Rathod discloses
communication between the wireless devices (e.g., cellular or smartphones)
of a user and driver (e.g., a driver of a cab).
The Examiner further found it obvious to use a communication
between the wireless devices of the driver and user to control illumination as
required by the last step of the claim. Final Act. 6. We agree with the
Examiner’s determination. For example, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to use the indicia described by Meinke to
communicate information from a driver to a user, such as turning on the
display of the indicia/logo to indicate that the driver is at the pickup location.
Meinke expressly teaches the indicia, may be used to communicate
information. Meinke ¶¶ 5, 33. Appellant’s argument about Rathod’s failure
to suggest controlling illumination of the badge (Appeal Br. 8) is unavailing
because the rejection is based on the combination of Rathod and Meinke.
Meinke’s teachings about a user controlling illumination of an indicia
(Meinke ¶ 53) would have reasonably suggested, in combination with
Rathod, the recited limitation, to communicate information about the status
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

10
of the vehicle. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). An explicit suggestion to modify the prior art is unnecessary to
establish obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415
(2007). KSR held that an obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. “A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Here, the Examiner provided adequate evidence that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been prompted to combine Meinke and Rathod to have
arrived at the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15, 20, and 22 were not argued separately and therefore
fall with claim 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 17
Claim 17 depends from claim 10 and further recites: “the applique
comprises a film having one or more service provider logos printed on the
film, and wherein the control is configured to only illuminate the service
provider logo for a current active service provider.” The Examiner rejected
the claims over the combination of Meinke and Rathod. Final Act. 6–7.4

4 The Examiner apparently cited to portions of Brubaker when making the
rejection, even though Brubaker was not cited in the statement of the
rejection. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

11
Appellant contends that Meinke “does not disclose printing a logo on
a film with ink, and instead discloses forming the logo in a mask (paragraph
[0039]). Further, paragraph [0076] of Meinke refers to paint and not a
printed film.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis removed; brackets in original).
This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. Meinke
discloses that many different methods can be employed for manufacturing
the mask comprising the logo, including by printing. Meinke ¶ 50. Paragraph
76 of Meinke describes an indicia formed by a “single layer” of paint.
Meinke also discloses “the mask 34 can be a film mounted to the substrate
30.” Meinke ¶ 49. See also Meinke ¶ 81.5 Based on these disclosures, we
find that it would be obvious to print the logo on a film as an obvious way of
applying the logo to the vehicle body member as recited in the claim. The
skilled worker is not an automaton. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. The rejection of
claim 17 is affirmed.

Claims 18, 19
Claim 18, depends from claim 10, and further recites “wherein the
applique is formed as part of a film having a service provider logo molded
within a clear plastic body to form a molded part.” The Examiner rejected
the claim over the combination of Meinke and Rathod. Final Act. 6–7. The
Examiner further cited to paragraphs 40, 41, and 81 of Meinke as describing
this limitation. Final Act. 7. The Examiner, however, did not identify where

5 “The indicia coating 382 having a selected color and finish can be applied
to the display panel 378 to conceal the 7-segment display and blend the
display console 372 into adjacent body panels. Alternatively, the indicia
coating 382 can be applied directly over the 7-segment display indicia 380.”
See Final Act. 7 (citing Meinke ¶ 81).
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

12
a clear plastic body as claimed is described in these disclosures, and upon
our review, we did not find it. Therefore, as discussed for claim 1, the
Examiner did not establish that the film having the logo is molded with a
clear plastic body to form the molded part. The rejection of claim 18 is
therefore reversed. Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and is reversed, as well.

Claims 27, 29, 30
Appellant relies on the same arguments for claims 27, 29, and 30 as
for claim 10. The rejection of these claims is therefore affirmed for the same
reasons as claim 10.

REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE, RATHOD, AND BRUBAKER
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites “wherein the at
least one badge comprises a plurality of badges that each include one or
more service provider logos, and wherein the control only illuminates the
service provider logo associated with a current active service provider.” The
Examiner rejected the claim over the combination of Meinke, Rathod, and
Brubaker. Final Act. 9. The Examiner cited paragraphs 112 and 248 of
Brubaker as describing this limitation. Ans. 15.
Appellant responded that Brubaker ¶ 112 does not describe the claim
limitation. Reply Br. 8. We have reviewed this disclosure and agree with
Appellant that it does not disclose or suggest that the claim limitation.
Appellant also responded that Brubaker ¶ 248 “discloses displaying a
corporate logo. There is no disclosure of illuminating only the service
provider logo associated with a current active service provider.” Reply Br. 8.
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

13
Paragraph 248 of Brubaker refers to HDS. HDS stands for
“Hyper-Relevant Digital Surfaces,” which are “video displays that may be
integrated with vehicle body panels.” Brubaker ¶ 60. Brubaker ¶ 248
discloses that advertising and logos can be displayed on HDS. While it may
be true that the HDS can display any content, the Examiner did not explain
how Brubaker, alone, or in combination with Meinke, discloses or suggests a
badge having a plurality of badges with logos where the logo is selected by
changing illumination with a control to illuminate the specific content as
required by the claim. Meinke describes changing illumination of an indicia
(Meinke ¶¶ 32, 53 (“the illumination source 36 can operate in a plurality of
illumination states, wherein the intensity of the light from the illumination
source 36 can be different for each illumination state”)), but the Examiner
did not provide any reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to
illuminate a badge in such a way that it “only illuminates the service
provider logo associated with a current active service provider,” or any other
type of content, as recited in the claim. The Examiner also did not cite any
additional disclosure in Brubaker, apart from paragraphs 91, 112, and 248
(which we found deficient) to disclose or suggestion the claimed limitation.
Final Act. 9; Ans. 15. Consequently, we are compelled to reverse the
rejection of claim 11.
In reversing the rejection, we do find the deficiency to be in the type
of content which is displayed, but rather in the lack of evidence and
reasoning of the obviousness of controlling the illumination to illuminate
only one content on a badge which has a plurality of content (“a plurality of
badges that each include one or more service provider logos”).

Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

14
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11. The rejection is reversed because it
depends from claim 11.

REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE, RATHOD,
BRUBACKER, AND BRUNELL
Claim 13, which depends from claim 12, is rejected based on Meinke,
Rathod, Brubaker, and Brunell. Final Act. 10-11. As indicated above, the
rejection of claim 12 is reversed. The disclosure identified by the Examiner
in Brunell does not make up for the deficiencies described above in Meinke,
Rathod, and Brubaker. Final Act. 9. Claim 13, which depends from claim
12, is therefore reversed, as well.

REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE, RATHOD, AND SEDER
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 10 and further comprises “wherein the
user input comprises a user request of an associated service, and wherein the
control illuminates the badge based on a defined distance between a service
provider vehicle and the user.”
The Examiner rejected the claim based on Meinke, Rathod, and Seder.
Final Act. 10. The Examiner found that Meinke and Rathod “fails to disclose
the illuminating of the badge being dependent on the defined distance
between a service provider vehicle and the user,” but found, citing page 6,
¶ 1 of Seder, that “Seder however discloses the activation of the illumination
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

15
of the commercial vehicle logo based on the vehicle approaching or in
proximity/vicinity of a pedestrian for potential pickup.” Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues “Seder refers to a pedestrian approaching a vehicle.
There is no disclosure of the user input being a service request where the
badge is then illuminated based on a defined distance between a service
provider vehicle and the user.” Appeal Br. 11.
The rejection is based on the combination of Meinke, Rathod, and
Seder. Seder describe that a “personal communication, which is left by the
driver of the vehicle, for example, can be displayed at any time, if a
pedestrian in the vicinity of the vehicle is located.” Seder 6.
Rathod describes a user making a request to service for pickup. Rathod
¶¶ 21, 131, 132. The Examiner determined, based on Rathod’s disclosure,
that the claimed limitation is obvious. Appellant did not address the
disclosure in Rathod as it pertains to the rejection of claim 16. See Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097. The rejection of claim 16 is affirmed.

Claims 23, 28
Claims 23 and 28 are rejected on the same combination of
publications. Claim 23, depends from claim 10, and is affirmed for the same
reasons. Claim 28, depends from claims 27 and 10, and is affirmed for the
same reasons as claim 10.

REJECTION BASED ON MEINKE, RATHOD, AND BRUNELL
Claim 21 depends from claim 10, and further recites where the control
to control illumination of the badge is “configured to automatically
deactivate illumination of the badge based on a specified geo-fenced area.”
Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

16
The Examiner found that Brunell ¶ 99 discloses a device comprising a
GPS receiver such that the advertising on the display media can be targeted
to a specific geographic areas, and explained that where the driver “wants to
advertise a specific brand only in Washington D.C., the badge/logo will not
illuminate until the GPS component within the device detects the vehicle is
within the confines of Washington D.C.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner found
it obvious to combine Brunell with Meinke “to effectively have a
geographical related advertisement being displayed on a vehicle.” Id.
Appellant contends “there is no disclosure of automatically
deactivating illumination of the badge based on a specified geo-fenced area.”
Appeal Br. 5, 12.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As discussed by the
Examiner, Brunell ¶ 99 describes targeting advertising using GPS. Brunell
100 further describes programming the display. It would have been obvious
based on this disclosure, as found by the Examiner, to display content based
on the GPS location as disclosed by Brunell, and to do so by programming
such that the logo is only illuminated when in particular area as detected by
GPS for the reasons stated by the Examiner. The rejection of claim 21 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2020-002495
Application 15/587,496

17

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–8, 25 103 Meinke, Brubaker 1–3, 6–8, 25
4, 24 103 Meinke, Brubaker,
Brunell
4, 24
5, 26 103 Meinke, Brubaker,
Seder
5, 26
7

103 Meinke, Brubaker,
Baur
7
9, 31 103 Meinke, Brubaker,
Rathod
9, 31
10, 14, 15,
17–20, 22,
27, 29, 30
103 Meinke, Rathod 10, 14, 15,
17, 20, 22,
27, 29, 30
18, 19
11, 12 103 Meinke, Rathod,
Brubaker
11, 12
13 103 Meinke, Rathod,
Brubaker, Brunell
13
16, 23, 28,
32
103 Meinke, Rathod,
Seder
16, 23, 28 32
21 103 Meinke, Rathod,
Brunell
21
33 103 Meinke, Brubaker,
Neitzke
33
Overall
Outcome
10, 14–17,
20–23, 27–
30
1–9, 11–13,
18, 19, 24–
26, 31–33

TIME PERIOD
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