Jeffrey J. Bonasso et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 14, 202012042451 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 12/042,451 03/05/2008 Jeffrey J. Bonasso END920070507US1 3391 46583 7590 01/14/2020 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. Intellectual Property Department P.O. Box 10064 MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064 EXAMINER RIFKIN, BEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2020 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): docketing@rmsc2.com lgallaugher@rmsc2.com secretaries@rmsc2.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY J. BONASSO, SARA GIORDANO, RAHUL GUPTA, KATHRYN MARIETTA-TONDIN, JANIS A. MORARIU, DEVANG D. PATEL, AMY S. PURDY, MICHAEL REED, AMY B. SANDER THRASHER, and ANTONELLA VACCINA1 ____________ Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 (all pending claims, claims 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 22, and 23 were previously cancelled). See App. Br. 50–55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 12, 20, and 25 are independent. We select claim 20, which is directed to a method, as illustrative: 20. A method for deploying an application for immersive learning comprising: providing a computer infrastructure being operable to: receive and store a customized set of templates; present the set of templates to a knowledge worker via a graphical user interface; capture knowledge of the knowledge worker via the graphical user interface using selectable icons associated with one of the set of templates comprising a hierarchical format, wherein each selectable icon is associated with a different task with associated feasible actions; convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML form; embed external resources into the one of the set of templates; determine a knowledge model using the knowledge captured from the knowledge worker; transfer the knowledge model to a designer via a schema having a standardized XML format including objects for an immersive environment; receive scenario-specific details in the form of media and graphics, which are added to the knowledge model; present the Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 3 knowledge model to the knowledge worker and the designer for verification; automate an XLM feed of the knowledge model to a gaming engine; determine a game model for the immersive environment from the knowledge model, the game model having a gaming scenario using the standardized XML format, the gaming scenario exposing and defining logical situations based on the captured knowledge; and generate an interactive instructional game within the immersive environment based on the gaming scenario and the captured knowledge using the gaming engine. Prior Art Borton US 2001/0047274 A1 Nov. 29, 2001 Callender US 2002/0119433 A1 Aug. 29, 2002 Simon US 6,498,920 B1 Dec. 24, 2002 Hayes-Roth US 2003/0028498 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 Findlay US 2006/0105825 A1 May 18, 2006 Dimitruk US 2002/0133384 May 20, 2008 Azad Bolour, Notes on the Eclipse Plug-In Architecture, Bolour Computing (July 3, 2003). Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–25 of copending Application No. 12/042434. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 4 Claims 1, 3, 7, 9–13, 16–21, and 24–282 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes, Findlay, Simon, and Borton. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Callender. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Bolour. ANALYSIS § 101 Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 The Examiner determines that the claims “are directed to a gaming engine and knowledge recorder . . . to create a game,” which “constitutes an abstract idea lacking significantly more.” Final Act. 7–8; see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”). After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”).3 Under the Memorandum, 2 The Examiner’s heading lists claims “1–4, 7, and 9–28” as rejected under § 103—erroneously including claims previously cancelled—and includes some previously cancelled claims in the body of the rejection. Appellant notes the error and addresses only the pending claims. App. Br. 32. We consider the Examiner’s error in this regard harmless. 3 In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 5 the Office first looks to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic principles and practice, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships, interpersonal interactions, (c) mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum. Appellant contends each of independent claims 1, 12, 20, and 25, as well as dependent claim 8, are not directed to an abstract idea because these claims do not recite a mathematical algorithm nor a fundamental economic or commercial practice, but rather, address the challenge of building interactive computer games which is necessarily rooted in computer Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (jointly referred to as “the 2019 Guidance”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (October 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability of the October update). Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 6 technology. App. Br. 14, 18, 21, 25, 29; Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Instead, pursuant to Step 2A of the Memorandum, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 7–8; Memorandum, Section III(A) (Revised Step 2A). Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea) Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Memorandum Step 2A, Prong One The Specification discloses: FIG. 1 shows an illustrative environment 10 for managing the processes in accordance with the invention. To this extent, the environment 10 includes a computer infrastructure 12 that can perform the processes described herein. In particular, the computer infrastructure 12 includes a computing device 14 that comprises a Knowledge Recorder 16a and an Instructional Design Tool 16b, both implementing and using a standardized XML schema. The standard XML schema makes it possible to communicate efficiently and effectively across the different tools and platforms in accordance with the invention. Spec. ¶ 21. The Specification also discloses: The computing device 14 can comprise any general purpose computing article of manufacture capable of executing computer program code installed thereon (e.g., a personal computer, server, handheld device, etc.). However, it is understood that the computing device 14 is only representative of various possible equivalent-computing devices that may perform the processes described herein. To this extent, in embodiments, the functionality provided by computing device 14 can be implemented by a computing article of manufacture that includes any combination of general and/or specific purpose hardware and/or computer program code. In each embodiment, the program code and hardware can be created using standard programming and engineering techniques, respectively. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 7 Id. at ¶ 29. Claim 20 recites: 20. A method for deploying an application for immersive learning comprising: providing a computer infrastructure being operable to: receive and store a customized set of templates; present the set of templates to a knowledge worker via a graphical user interface; capture knowledge of the knowledge worker via the graphical user interface using selectable icons associated with one of the set of templates comprising a hierarchical format, wherein each selectable icon is associated with a different task with associated feasible actions; convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML form; embed external resources into the one of the set of templates; determine a knowledge model using the knowledge captured from the knowledge worker; transfer the knowledge model to a designer via a schema having a standardized XML format including objects for an immersive environment; receive scenario-specific details in the form of media and graphics, which are added to the knowledge model; present the knowledge model to the knowledge worker and the designer for verification; automate an XLM [sic] feed of the knowledge model to a gaming engine; determine a game model for the immersive environment from the knowledge model, the game model having a gaming scenario using the standardized XML format, the gaming scenario exposing and defining logical situations based on the captured knowledge; and Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 8 generate an interactive instructional game within the immersive environment based on the gaming scenario and the captured knowledge using the gaming engine. These steps comprise managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, the steps of “present the set of templates” and “capture knowledge of the knowledge worker” allow an experienced knowledge worker to capture and transfer knowledge and skills to train a novice knowledge worker. See Spec. ¶ 20. The steps of “convert icon selections,” “embed external resources,” “determine a knowledge model,” and “transfer the knowledge model to a designer” allow an instructional designer to use the knowledge of the expert to model an instructional game. See Spec. ¶ 25. The steps of “automate an XML feed of the knowledge model,” “determine a game model,” and “generate an interactive instructional game” allow a novice knowledge worker to acquire knowledge using an instructional game. See Spec. ¶ 20. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see also Spec. ¶¶ 5– 8, 17–20. Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One of the guidance. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception). Step 2A, Prong Two Under Prong Two of the Memorandum, we must determine “whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 9 application of the exception”; it is noted that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Memorandum, Section III(A)(2). Appellant argues that the claims in the instant application address “a challenge (building interactive computer games) which is necessarily rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 14 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). App. Br. 14. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We find Appellant’s claims are distinguished from those claims that our reviewing court has found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting a computer processor for serving a “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In the present case, we determine the claims present no similar technical improvements. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 10 not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). The recited limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”). Further, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because the claims utilize general purpose hardware, such as a mobile device, and networking as a tool to market merchants’ offers. See Specification ¶¶ 21–31; see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea . . . the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self- referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at 1370 (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”). Subsequently, we detect no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in claims 1, 8, 12, 20, and 25 that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2). For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g., a knowledge model, a game model, and an interactive instructional game) do not: (1) Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 11 improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic hardware); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Accordingly, we determine the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application). Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept) Step 2B identified in the Memorandum Step 2B Next, we determine whether the claims include additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012)). Appellant contends that: claim 1 recites a computer platform including: (1) a gaming engine "configured to generate an interactive instructional game within an immersive environment based on the scenario- specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema", (2) a knowledge recorder, and (3) an instructional design tool. The knowledge recorder includes a configuration and management component enabling a service provider to load, update and customize a set of templates, and an interview session tool. The interview session tool is configured to: "present the set of templates to a knowledge worker via a graphical user interface; capture knowledge of the knowledge worker using selectable Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 12 icons in a first template from the set of templates comprising a decision tree based structure, wherein each selectable icon leads to a different scenario; convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML form; embed external resources into the first template; and determine a knowledge model using the knowledge captured from the knowledge worker, wherein the captured knowledge is recorded in a schema that is transferable using a standardized XML format." Moreover, the instructional design tool is configured to "enable an instructional designer to incorporate scenario-specific details in the form of media and graphics with the captured knowledge, and save the scenario- specific details using a standardized XML format" and "automate an XML feed of the scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema to the gaming engine". App. Br. 15–16. According to Appellant, the combined limitations of claim 1 amount to more than instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For example, the capturing of knowledge through multiple selectable icons that each lead to a different scenario and the converting of the selectable icons to XML format for feeding to a gaming engine with additional embedded external resources is not merely the implementation of an abstract idea using a computer. . . . For example, the automatic feeding of converted selected icons and scenario-specific details in XML format to a gaming engine for generating an interactive computer game is not conventional. Id. at 16. The Examiner finds the claims: do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim limitations amount to no more than taking in of data, manipulating it, and displaying it to a user (see Int. Ventures v Cap One Financial).4 4 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 13 Final Act. 8; see Ans. 44–48. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and are properly based upon a factual determination as specified in the Berkheimer Memorandum,5 Section III (A)(2). The Examiner supports the determination by noting that courts have recognized the claimed computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See Final Act.8. Appellant also contends that the elements of claims 1, 12, 20, and 25 are an ordered combination because the elements refer to previous elements via antecedent basis. Reply Br. 7–8, 10, 13, and 15–16 (citing BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit found that installing a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user was a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1352. Appellant has not persuasively shown that the ordered combination of the elements of claims 1, 12, 20, and 25 do anything more than gather data, manipulate data, and present data to the user. See Ans. 44. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 5 Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, April 19, 2018. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 14 Double patenting rejection Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–25 of copending Application No. 12/042434.6 Appellant contends that “the Examiner has not addressed ‘capturing knowledge of the knowledge worker using selectable icons.” App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds that the “use of ‘icons’ to capture input such as knowledge is a well-known feature in computer programming art.” Ans. 41. Appellant contends that the “Examiner has not pointed to any evidence showing that using selectable icons in the manner recited in claim 1 is ‘a well-known feature in computer programming art,” and that the “rejection is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant for the reasons given by Appellant in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. The Examiner, in the double patenting rejection, has not cited evidence to support the finding that using selectable icons was a well-known feature. We do not sustain the double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28. § 103 Rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 For the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Final Action and the 6Now U.S. Patent No. 10,095,805. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 15 Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following arguments from the Reply Brief to complete the record. Appellant contends that “capture knowledge . . . using selectable icons . . . wherein each selectable icon leads to a different scenario” as claimed is not taught by Hayes’s teaching of arranging icons on an electronic diagram to specify the flow and parameters of an interaction. Reply Br. 16 (citing Hayes ¶¶ 24–25). The Examiner finds that using icons to create a flow diagram as taught by Hayes meets this limitation. Ans. 48–49. The Examiner further finds that Hayes teaches using icons or buttons to enter data, move through programs, and enter different editors or programs. Ans. 49 (citing Hayes ¶¶ 25, 170–174, 505, 508, 569, and 631). Appellant contends that the cited paragraphs of Hayes disclose selectable buttons, not selectable icons. Reply Br. 16. Appellant has not provided a definition of “selectable icons” as claimed that excludes selectable buttons as taught by Hayes. Appellant contends that the combination of Hayes, Findlay, Simon, and Borton does not teach “convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML form” as claimed. Reply Br. 17. The Examiner finds that Hayes’s disclosure of storing data for learning objects and dialog templates in XML documents teaches “convert icon selections of a user into standard XML form.” Ans. 49–50. We agree with the Examiner, that using icons to enter data into the system of Hayes, and storing the data in an XML document, teaches “convert icon selections of a user into standard XML form” as claimed. Appellant contends the combination does not teach “automate an XML feed of the scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 16 schema to the gaming engine; and wherein the gaming engine is configured to generate an interactive instructional game within an immersive environment based on the scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema” as claimed. Reply Br. 17. Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that the combination does not teach (a) capturing data from templates with selectable icons that lead to different scenarios, nor (b) converting the selection of icons into XML, which we find unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellant contends that the combination does not teach “present the scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema to the knowledge worker and the instructional designer for verification” as claimed. Reply Br. 18. The Examiner relies on Simon to show that presenting knowledge to a user in order to verify that the knowledge was created and edited correctly was known in the prior art. Ans. 51–52 (citing Simon, col. 6, ll. 6–29). We agree with the Examiner. To the extent that the claim recites presenting the details for verification to two people, rather than only one person, Appellant has not shown that presenting details to two people rather than only one person was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2018-005326 Application 12/042,451 17 DECISION The Examiner’s double-patenting rejection is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, 24– 28 101 eligibility 1, 3, 4, 7– 13, 16–21, 24–28 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, 24– 28 Non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting 1, 3, 4, 7– 13, 16–21, 24–28 1, 3, 4, 7, 9– 28 103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon, and Borton 1, 3, 7, 9– 13, 16–21, and 24–28 4 103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Callender 4 8 103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Bolour 8 Overall Outcome: 1, 3, 4, 7– 13, 16–21, 24–28 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation