QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000758 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 14/789,301 07/01/2015 Durga Prasad Malladi PQ267.01 (81679.0761) 2454 109682 7590 03/02/2022 Holland & Hart LLP/Qualcomm P.O. Box 11583 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 EXAMINER ESMAEILIAN, MAJID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com patentdocket@hollandhart.com qualcomm@hollandhart.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DURGA PRASAD MALLADI, TAO LUO, ALEKSANDAR DAMNJANOVIC, YONGBIN WEI, MADHAVAN SRINIVASAN VAJAPEYAM, and WANSHI CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-33.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated. (Appeal Br. 2.) 2 Claims 5 and 14 have been cancelled. (See Final Act. 2.) 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 1, 2015, Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 18, 2019, Advisory Action (Advisory Act.) mailed January 30, 2020, Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and system for “Cell Discovery in a Wireless Network Using an Unlicensed Radio Frequency Spectrum Band” by performing extended clear channel assessments (eCCAs), transmitting and receiving synchronization signals and reference signals over the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band, communicating locations of reference signals, and communicating availability of certain resources to be combined across multiple different transmissions. (Spec. Title (capitalization altered), Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of wireless communication, comprising: generating a system information block (SIB) comprising a plurality of parameters related to a base station; transmitting a control channel associated with the SIB within a first subset of resources of a downlink channel over an unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band; and transmitting, within a second subset of resources of the downlink channel, a reference signal comprising information indicating a location of the first subset of resources of the downlink channel, wherein the second subset of resources is disjoint from the first subset of resources, wherein the information included in the reference signal maps to the location of the first subset of resources, and wherein the SIB is transmitted in resources of the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band. (Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).) June 16, 2020, Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 14, 2020, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed November 10, 2020. Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 3 REJECTIONS & REFERENCES Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25-27, and 29-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kazmi et al. (US 2013/0155991 A1, published June 20, 2013) (“Kazmi”), Mizusawa (US 2014/0302867 A1, published Oct. 9, 2014) (“Mizusawa”), and Wang et al. (US 2011/0268101 A1, published Nov. 3, 2011) (“Wang”). (Final Act. 3-35.)4 Claims 3, 13, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kazmi, Mizusawa, Wang, and Nogami et al. (US 2011/0256868 A1, published Oct. 20, 2011) (“Nogami”). (Final Act. 35-42.) Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16-18, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kazmi, Mizusawa, Wang, and Bhushan et al. (US 2014/0341018 A1, published Nov. 20, 2014) (“Bhushan”). (Final Act. 42- 58.) ANALYSIS Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are 4 The listing of the rejection includes claim 14 (see Final Act. 3), however, claim 14 has been cancelled (see Final Act. 2). Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 4 not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-31 With respect to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues the Examiner’s combination of Kazmi, Mizusawa, and Wang does not teach or suggest transmitting, within a second subset of resources of the downlink channel, a reference signal comprising information indicating a location of the first subset of resources [(that transmit a control channel associated with the SIB)] of the downlink channel, wherein the second subset of resources is disjoint from the first subset of resources, [and] wherein the information included in the reference signal maps to the location of the first subset of resources, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-7.) In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner’s “cited aspects of Mizusawa relate to how the terminal may identify the location of the reference signals (based on a PCI [(physical layer cell ID)])” which “is not the same as . . . using a reference signal to identify the location of something else, let alone based on information included within the reference signal itself, and also let alone where the something else is a subset of resources that includes a control channel.” (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4, 6-7.) In the Reply Brief, Appellant recognizes that the Examiner’s Answer appears to equate (i) the PDSCH [(physical down shared channel)] resources of Mizusawa with the first subset of resources recited in claim 1 and (ii) the PDCCH [(physical down control channel)] resources in Mizusawa with Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 5 the second subset of resources recited in claim 1, with the reference signals in a subset of the PDCCH resources allegedly indicating the location of subcarriers within the PDSCH resources that are not also used by reference signals. (Reply Br. 3.) Appellant argues, however, that “the PDSCH of Mizusawa cannot map to the ‘control channel’ in independent claim 1” because “the PDSCH is not a control channel, but rather a shared data channel, and claim 1 explicitly recites that the ‘first subset of resources’ is used to transmit a control channel.” (Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 8-9.) Appellant further argues the cited art does not teach the claimed “second subset of resources [that] is disjoint from the first subset of resources.” (Appeal Br. 7-8, 10-11; Reply Br. 2-5.) For example, with respect to Mizusawa, Appellant argues “Mizusawa does not contemplate the reference signal including any location information or otherwise indicating the location of any disjoint subset of resources.” (Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 3-4.) Appellant additionally contends, “[n]othing in Kazmi suggests that a SIB may be transmitted on an unlicensed band” as required by the claimed “SIB [that] is transmitted in resources of the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band.” (Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 7-8.) Appellant submits that, “[a]lthough Kazmi mentions that a base station can support operation in both the licensed frequency band and the unlicensed frequency band, Kazmi discusses transmitting a SIB in only a licensed frequency band-and only other things in the unlicensed band.” (Appeal Br. 13-14 (citing Kazmi ¶ 93, Fig. 10); see also Reply Br. 7-8.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the Examiner that the asserted combination of Kazmi, Mizusawa, and Wang teaches the transmitting operations recited in claim 1. (See Final Act. 4-8; Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 6 Ans. 58-59.) In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Mizusawa teaches “two different subsets of downlink resources” including “those resources associated with physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), and resources associated with physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH),” whereby “‘reference signals’ that are inserted into PDCCH, indicative of a subset of frequency resources of PDCCH . . . are then transmitted to a terminal . . . that receives PDCCH to know the position of the resource blocks of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated.” (Ans. 58 (citing Mizusawa ¶ 50, Fig. 2); Final Act. 6 (citing Mizusawa ¶¶ 49, 51, Fig. 2).) Thus, portions of Mizusawa’s PDSCH to which SIB is allocated teach the claimed “first subset of resources” that transmit the claimed SIB, while portions of Mizusawa’s PDCCH including reference signals teach the claimed “second subset of resources” including the claimed “reference signal.” (Final Act. 5- 8; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 58.) The Examiner’s findings are supported by Mizusawa’s Figure 2 (and the corresponding description), disclosing PDSCH and PDCCH channels in a “downlink transmitted by a base station of the LTE scheme to a terminal.” (See Mizusawa ¶ 47, Fig. 2.) In its description of Figure 2, Mizusawa explains that some “[s]ystem information is mapped to . . . the physical down shared channel (PDSCH)”; more particularly, “the system information block (SIB) such as information indicating whether a terminal can be present in the cell, the bandwidth of uplink, random access channel parameters, parameters of uplink transmission power control, information about cell reselection, and information about neighboring cells is mapped to PDSCH.” (Mizusawa ¶ 49 (emphasis added); see also Mizusawa’s Fig. 2 (illustrating resource blocks of PDSCH being allocated to the second to sixth OFDM Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 7 symbols of a subframe’s first slot, and to all OFDM symbols of the subframe’s second slot).) We therefore agree with the Examiner that portions of Mizusawa’s PDSCH to which SIB is allocated teach the claimed “first subset of resources of a downlink channel” used for “transmitting a control channel associated with the SIB,” as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 58.) Additional paragraphs in Mizusawa describing Figure 2 provide that the “(PDCCH) [(transmitted in the downlink)] is allocated to remaining resource elements of the control area (first three OFDM symbols of each subframe),” with “[t]he resource allocation (scheduling information) of downlink to each terminal [being] notified by PDCCH of the same subframe of the allocated resource.” (See Mizusawa ¶¶ 47, 53.) As explained by Mizusawa, the “terminal . . . receives PDCCH to know the position of the resource block of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated, and SIB information is decoded from the corresponding PDSCH.” (Mizusawa ¶ 49 (emphasis added).) Thus, as noted by the Examiner, portions of Mizusawa’s PDCCH teach the claimed “second subset of resources of the downlink channel” recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 6-7; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 58.) That is because portions of Mizusawa’s PDCCH enable a receiving terminal “to know the position of the resource block of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated” so that “SIB information is decoded from the corresponding PDSCH” (see Mizusawa ¶ 49 (emphasis added))-thereby teaching that the PDCCH transmits “a reference signal comprising information indicating a location of the first subset of resources of the downlink channel” (i.e., indicating a position of the resource block of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated, see id.) (Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 58.) Moreover, information Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 8 included in the reference signal of Mizusawa’s PDCCH maps to the location of the first subset of resources (as required by claim 1) because Mizusawa’s PDCCH provides information regarding “the position of the resource block of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated” and enables a receiving terminal to decode “SIB information . . . from the corresponding PDSCH.” (See Mizusawa ¶ 49; Final Act. 6-8.) As the Examiner further notes, Mizusawa’s Figure 2 shows the first subset of resources (resource blocks of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated) being disjoint from the second subset of resources (reference signals in PDCCH that allow a terminal to know the position of the resource block of PDSCH to which SIB is allocated, see Mizusawa ¶ 49.) (Ans. 58 (noting that “‘reference signals’ that are inserted into a subset of those PDCCH resources” in Mizusawa’s Figure 2 occupy resources that are not used by signals within PDSCH).) We agree with the Examiner that Mizusawa’s “Fig 2 shows two different and distinct resource blocks that are not overlapping and hence disjoint,” as required by claim 1. (Ans. 58.) Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s findings regarding Mizusawa, particularly because “the PDSCH of Mizusawa cannot map to the ‘control channel’ in independent claim 1” as “the PDSCH is not a control channel, but rather a shared data channel, and claim 1 explicitly recites that the ‘first subset of resources’ is used to transmit a control channel.” (Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 8-9.) That is, in Appellant’s view, the PDSCH cannot include the claimed “control channel” because the name PDSCH is an acronym for the phrase “physical downlink shared channel” that does not include the word “control” therein-in contrast to the acronym PDCCH, which stands for “physical downlink control channel.” (See Appeal Br. 8-9 Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 9 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 3.) Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require the first subset of resources to be one of the officially named “control channels” (e.g., per LTE terminology) or to include a dedicated control channel. Claim 1 merely requires that a “control channel associated with the SIB” be transmitted within the first subset of resources. (See Appeal Br. 24 claim 1).) Because Mizusawa’s PDSCH does include control information-in the form of a “system information block (SIB) . . . indicating . . . random access channel parameters, parameters of uplink transmission power control, information about cell reselection, and information about neighboring cells” (see Mizusawa ¶ 49 (emphasis added))-we agree with the Examiner that the PDSCH portions to which the SIB is allocated in Mizusawa teach the claimed “first subset of resources” that “transmit[] a control channel associated with the SIB,” as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 5-7.)5 As further noted by the Examiner, Kazmi discloses “a control channel associated with the SIB” as well. (Final Act. 4 (citing Kazmi ¶ 93, Fig. 10).) We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that “there is no teaching or suggestion [in Kazmi] of transmitting a SIB in anything other than a ‘default licensed’ band.” (Reply Br. 7-8; see also Appeal Br. 12-14.) 5 Appellant’s Specification similarly describes control channels associated with the SIB as channels that transmit control information pertaining to base stations. (See Spec. ¶¶ 5 (describing “control channel information that may be used for identifying a cell and for determining timing and other parameters of the cell”), 27 (“the control channel may include a plurality of resource blocks, and wherein the reference signal indicates a subset of the plurality of resource blocks that include the SIB”), 83 (“the eSIB may provide system information for cell discovery, and may include . . . a cell identifier”).) Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 10 Appellant’s support for this contention relies upon Appellant’s argument that Kazmi’s paragraph 93 “discusses transmitting a SIB in only a licensed frequency band-and only other things in the unlicensed band” and “explains that a UE [(User Equipment)] may not ‘start operation on a selected frequency band (e.g., unlicensed band), which is different than the default band’ until after the UE has obtained the SIB and initiated a random access process on the default licensed band.” (Appeal Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 7-8.) The Examiner, however, has also cited to Kazmi’s paragraphs 18, 41, and 88 as evidence that Kazmi envisions transmission of a system information block (SIB) over both licensed and unlicensed radio frequency bands. (See Final Act. 4-5 (citing Kazmi ¶¶ 7, 18-19, 41, 88, 93, Fig. 10).)6 We agree with the Examiner’s assessment of Kazmi, because Kazmi explains that a terminal (UE) can be transitioned not only from a licensed to an unlicensed frequency band, but also from an unlicensed to a licensed frequency band. (See Kazmi ¶ 41 (describing “re-selection between licensed frequency bands and unlicensed frequency bands . . . performed when the interference level in a macro cell of a wireless communications network operating in a certain frequency band exceeds a certain threshold,” whereby “[s]electing to go back to a licensed frequency band from an unlicensed frequency band is done if the interference level in the licensed frequency band is within acceptable limit”).) Kazmi’s paragraph 88 describes in more detail how “to provide a smooth transition when 6 The Examiner’s reference to Kazmi’s “para[0089] for broadcast channels transmitted in the central 6 resource block) regardless of bandwidth used in a cell” (see Final Act. 4) includes a typo, as it is Kazmi’s paragraph 88 (not 89) that discusses broadcast channels transmitted “in central 6 Resource Blocks” (see Kazmi ¶ 88). Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 11 reselecting frequency bands” in order to “switch from licensed to unlicensed frequency bands or vice versa”: Both, home BS [(Base Station)] autonomous selection/switching and macro network, i.e. macro BS, controlled selection/switching would involve a transition phase while the home BS 7 operation is reselected/switched between the licensed and unlicensed frequency bands. When UEs 9, which are in idle and connected modes, are served by the home BS 7, which wants to switch from licensed to unlicensed frequency bands or vice versa, the home BS 7 signals these UEs 9 that there will be a transition phase, predefined time period, while switching between licensed and unlicensed frequency bands. . . . [H]ome BS 7 may also operate simultaneously in both licensed and unlicensed frequency band during a limited predefined time period in order to provide a smooth transition when reselecting frequency bands. The home BS 7 may also perform partially smooth transition, by which it is meant that the home BS 7 operates in part of a bandwidth of an initial frequency band, e.g. licensed frequency band, while doing transition to the next frequency band, e.g. unlicensed frequency band. For example a selected part of the bandwidth in the initial frequency band may send limited data and control information until the UEs 9 attains synchronization with and acquires relevant system information of home BS 7 operating in unlicensed frequency band(s). This means that the UEs 7 synchronize to the home BS 7 without losing data or with minimal loss of data. . . . Hence according to this embodiment the UE 9 may be served by the part of the initial frequency band, i.e. by licensed frequency band, while the transition phase is being completed. (Kazmi ¶ 88 (emphasis added).) Thus, Kazmi’s paragraph 88 describes transitions “from licensed to unlicensed frequency bands or vice versa,” with the “relevant system information of home BS” being acquired by the UE using the initial frequency band-which, in an unlicensed-to-licensed band transition, would be the unlicensed frequency band. (See Kazmi ¶¶ 41, 88.) Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 12 As Kazmi’s paragraph 93 explains that the BS (Base Station) may “broadcast system information” in “a System Information Block (SIB),” we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would understand Kazmi envisions “the Base Station transmitting the SIB to UE using a broadcast channel . . . over unlicensed frequency bands.” (Final Act. 4; Kazmi ¶¶ 88, 93 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 59.) As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1, independent claim 19 reciting similar limitations and argued for the same reasons, and dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 20-25, and 31, argued for their dependency from claims 1 and 19. (See Appeal Br. 6, 14, 22.) Appellant separately argues independent claims 11 and 26. (See Appeal Br. 14-21; Reply Br. 8-14.) We note that claims 11 and 26 recite the same downlink transmission as claims 1 and 19, with claims 1 and 19 reciting operations at the transmission end (i.e., transmission operations performed by a base station), and claims 11 and 26 reciting operations at the receiving end (i.e., receiving and decoding operations at a wireless device/UE that receives the downlink transmission from the base station). Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 11 and 26 are similar to those submitted for claims 1 and 19. For example, Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 26 is deficient because: (i) the rejection “fails to show that the cited references teach or suggest receiving a reference signal in a first subset7 of resources that is disjoint 7 While claim 1 has the “reference signal” in “a second subset of resources of the downlink channel,” claims 11 and 26 have the “reference signal” in “a first subset of resources of a downlink channel.” (See Appeal Br. 25, 27-28 (claims 11 and 26).) Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 13 from a second subset8 of resources that includes a control channel”; (ii) the rejection has not shown the references teach or suggest receiving a reference signal over a first subset of resources of a downlink channel of an unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band, the reference signal comprising information indicating a location of a second subset of resources of the downlink channel, the second subset of resources comprising a control channel associated with a system information block (SIB) wherein “the first subset of resources is disjoint from the second subset of resources”; and (iii) the rejection “fails to show that the cited references teach or suggest receipt of a SIB in resources of an unlicensed radio frequency spectrum band.” (Appeal Br. 15-21 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 8-14.) As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that Mizusawa and Kazmi do not teach disjoint first and second subsets of resources, a SIB communicated via resources of an unlicensed radio frequency band, or a reference signal comprising information indicating a location, for mapping to the location of a subset of resources including a SIB. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 11 and 26, and dependent claims 12, 13, 15-18, and 27- 30, argued for their dependency. (See Appeal Br. 22.) § 103 Rejection of Claims 32 and 33 Appellant separately argues claim 32, which depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the information included in the reference signal 8 While claim 1 has the “control channel associated with the SIB” in “a first subset of resources of a downlink channel,” claims 11 and 26 have the “control channel associated with a system information block (SIB)” in “a second subset of resources of the downlink channel.” (See Appeal Br. 25, 27-28 (claims 11 and 26).) Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 14 comprises one or more bits that indicate the location of the first subset of resources of the downlink channel.” Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance on Mizusawa’s Figures 2 and 13 is deficient because “[n]one of the cited aspects of Mizusawa relate to bits within a reference signal” and Mizusawa fails to teach or suggest “the specific feature of bits included in a reference signal and that indicate the location of the first subset of resources of the downlink channel, especially where the reference signal is included in a second subset of resources that is disjoint from the first subset.” (Reply Br. 14-15; Appeal Br. 22.) However, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s cited art, including Mizusawa and Kazmi, does not teach a reference signal included in a second subset of resources that is disjoint from the first subset, or a reference signal comprising information indicating a location of the first subset of resources of the downlink channel. We also agree with the Examiner’s assessment that a skilled artisan would know that resource allocation and transmission of channel information is achieved by processing bits of information. (Final Act. 35; Ans. 63.) Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 32. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32, and of claim 33 reciting similar limitations and argued for the same reasons. (See Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 14-15.) DECISION SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2021-000758 Application 14/789,301 15 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25- 27, 29-33 103 Kazmi, Mizusawa, Wang 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25-27, 29- 33 3, 13, 21, 28 103 Kazmi, Mizusawa, Wang, Nogami 3, 13, 21, 28 6, 7, 9, 10, 16-18, 23, 24 103 Kazmi, Mizusawa, Wang, Bhushan 6, 7, 9, 10, 16-18, 23, 24 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-13, 15-33 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