Romano, Salvatore

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

13820853 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020)

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.
13/820,853 03/05/2013 Salvatore Romano 74398 7808
23872 7590 02/27/2020
MCGLEW & TUTTLE, PC
P.O. BOX 9227
SCARBOROUGH STATION
SCARBOROUGH, NY 10510-9227
EXAMINER
CATINA, MICHAEL ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SALVATORE ROMANO

Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20. 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. The Appellant identifies Salvatore Romano as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for automatic processing of blood pressure
signals, the method comprising at least the following steps:
A. sampling a detected pressure signal detected by a
pressure transducer for one or more heartbeats, each heartbeat
starting at an initial instant coinciding to that of an initial
diastolic pressure and ending at a final instant coinciding to that
of subsequent diastolic pressure and comprising a dicrotic
point, each heartbeat having a systolic phase comprised
between the initial diastolic point and the dicrotic point;
B. automatically analyzing and discriminating a
morphology of the sampled pressure signal for each heartbeat,
determining an instant and a pressure value of one or more
characteristic points of the pressure signal selected from one or
more of a point of initial diastolic blood pressure, a point of
systolic pressure, a dicrotic point and one or more resonance
points, each of which occurs when a second derivative of the
pressure signal has a relative maximum, wherein at least a
characteristic point of the pressure signal belongs to the systolic
phase of the heartbeat and is different from the point of initial
diastolic pressure; and
C. for each heartbeat determining an energy efficiency
value through the following sub-steps:
determining a direct dynamic pressure wave impedance
for each of said one or more characteristic points belonging to
the systolic phase of the heartbeat into consideration with an
exception of the point of initial diastolic pressure, said direct
dynamic pressure impedance being given by a ratio between a
value of the pressure signal in the characteristic point and a
time interval measured between the respective instant and the
initial instant of the heartbeat into consideration, and
determining an impedance of a direct pressure wave by adding
with alternating signs the values of the dynamic direct
impedances ordered according to a direct temporal order
starting from the initial instant of the heartbeat into
consideration up to the dicrotic instant, applying a positive sign
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

3
to the first dynamic direct impedance according to the direct
temporal order;
for each of said one or more characteristic points
determining a dynamic reflected impedance that is given by the
ratio between the pressure at the characteristic point and a time
interval measured between the respective instant and the instant
of a final beat, and determining the value of an impedance of
reflected waves of pressure is obtained by adding the dynamic
impedances with alternating signs of the second set of points
thus determined, sorted according to a reverse temporal order
starting from the instant of the final beat to the instant of the
initial diastolic pressure, giving a positive sign to the first
dynamic impedance according to the reverse temporal order,
the direct temporal order being a first chronological time order
starting from the instant of time of the initial diastolic pressure
up to the instant of time of the dicrotic point, the reverse
temporal order being a second reverse chronological time order
starting from the final instant of time of beat down to the instant
of time of the initial diastolic pressure; and
determining said energy efficiency as the ratio between
the impedance of the direct wave pressure and the impedance of
the reflected waves.
REJECTIONS2
I. Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible
subject matter.
II. Claims 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement.3

2 The Final Office Action (pages 4–7) includes a rejection based on claim
indefiniteness, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This rejection is withdrawn. See
Answer 2.
3 Rejection II refers to independent claims 14 and 15 (see Final Action 2–4),
but also applies to claim 20 (which depends from claim 14).
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Subject-Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific
and technological work, such that including them within the domain of
patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon
them. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013).
Of course, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply’” these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Accordingly,
evaluating ineligible subject matter, under these judicial exclusions, involves
a two-step framework for “distinguish[ing] between patents that claim the
buildin[g] block[s] of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building
blocks into something more, thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-
eligible invention.” Id. (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 88–89 (2012) (quotation marks omitted)). The first
step determines whether the claim is directed to judicially excluded subject
matter (such as a so-called “abstract idea”); the second step determines
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

5
whether there are any “additional elements” recited in the claim that (either
individually or as an “ordered combination”) amount to “significantly more”
than the identified judicially excepted subject matter itself. Id. at 217–18.
In 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is “directed
to” an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of (1) mathematical
concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental
processes — without integrating such abstract idea into a “practical
application,” i.e., without “apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or us[ing] 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.” Id. at 52–55. The considerations
articulated in MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h) bear upon whether a claim
element (or combination of elements) integrates an abstract idea into a
practical application. Id. at 55. A claim that is “directed to” an abstract idea
constitutes ineligible subject matter, unless the claim recites an additional
element (or combination of elements) amounting to significantly more than
the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
Although created “[i]n accordance with judicial precedent” (id. at 52),
the 2019 Revised Guidance enumerates the analytical steps differently than
the Supreme Court’s Alice opinion. Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance
addresses whether the claimed subject matter falls within any of the statutory
categories of § 101. Id. at 53–54. Step 2A, Prong One, concerns whether
the claim at issue recites ineligible subject matter and, if an abstract idea is
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

6
recited; Step 2A, Prong Two, addresses whether the recited abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application. Id. at 54–55. Unless such integration
exists, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, in order to determine whether any
additional element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly
more than the identified abstract idea. Id. at 56.
With respect to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Examiner
determines that independent claims 1 and 13 (along with respective
dependent claims) are within identified categories of § 101, whereas
independent claims 14 and 15 are drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Final Action 9.
Claim 14 recites: “A computer program, comprising coded means for
executing, when operating in connection with processing means of an
apparatus.” Claim 15 recites “A memory support readable by computer
means, the memory comprising a program, said program comprising coded
means for executing, when operating in connection with processing means
of an apparatus.”
If a claim is drawn to subject matter that falls outside the delineated
statutory categories of § 101, it is not patent-eligible. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d
1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Federal Circuit has explained that, with
the exception of process claims, “eligible subject matter must exist in some
physical or tangible form.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Board has held
that claim limitations, such as a “machine-readable storage medium,” that
(under a broadest reasonable interpretation) cover transitory signals, are non-
statutory subject matter. Ex parte Mehwherter, Appeal 2012-007692,
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

7
2013 WL 4477509, at *7 (PTAB, May 8, 2013) (precedential) (citing
Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356–57).
The Examiner states that the “computer program” of claim 14 “is not
a specific structure or physical object and could read on a signal per se
encoded with the instructions which does not fall into one of the four
statutory categories.” Answer 3. Similarly, the Examiner states that,
because the “memory support” of claim 15 is characterized in the claim
language as comprising at least “a program,” claim 15 also falls outside the
statutory categories of § 101. Id.
The Appellant does not meaningfully address the Examiner’s position,
as to the transitory or non-tangible nature of claims 14 and 15. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of independent claims 14 and 15, along with
dependent claim 20, as constituting non-statutory subject matter, under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
In regard to Step 2A, Prong One, of the subject-matter eligibility
analysis, the Examiner states:
Claim(s) 1–17 is/are determining the value of an impedance of
reflected waves of pressure and determining said energy
efficiency as the ratio between the impedance of the direct wave
and the reflected wave. The abstract idea in the claim is the
idea itself of determining the energy efficiency from the
directed and reflected impedance signals.
Final Action 7. The Examiner’s Answer adds: “Similar to the claims in In
re Grams[, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989),] and Electric Power Group[, LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016),] the current claims are
directed to collecting data, analyzing it and then displaying the results of the
analysis.” Answer 4.
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

8
The Examiner does not explicitly identify the claim limitations that
would describe an abstract idea; although, the Examiner does identify
limitations of claim 1 that are said to be the “additional elements” of the
claim.4 Consequently, at least the following limitations remain, in the
Examiner’s analysis, as describing a judicial exception:
determining the value of an impedance of reflected waves of
pressure is obtained by adding the dynamic impedances with
alternating signs of the second set of points thus determined,
sorted according to a reverse temporal order starting from the
instant of the final beat to the instant of the initial diastolic
pressure, giving a positive sign to the first dynamic impedance
according to the reverse temporal order, the direct temporal
order being a first chronological time order starting from the
instant of time of the initial diastolic pressure up to the instant
of time of the dicrotic point, the reverse temporal order being a

4 In the Final Office Action (pages 7–8) and the Answer (page 4), the
Examiner identifies the following claim 1 limitations as “additional
elements”: “automatically analyzing and discriminating a morphology of
the sampled pressure signal for each heartbeat, determining an instant and a
pressure value of one or more characteristic points of the pressure signal”;
“for each heartbeat determining an energy efficiency value [by] determining
a direct dynamic pressure wave impedance for each of said one or more
characteristic points”; “determining an impedance of a direct pressure wave
by adding with alternating signs the values of the dynamic direct impedances
ordered according to a direct temporal order starting from the initial instant
of the heartbeat into consideration up to the dicrotic instant, applying a
positive sign to the first dynamic direct impedance according to the direct
temporal order”; and “for each of said one or more characteristic points
determining a dynamic reflected impedance that is given by the ratio
between the pressure at the characteristic point and a time interval measured
between the respective instant and the instant of a final beat.” See Final
Office Action (pages 7–8); Answer (page 4). In addition, the Examiner
refers to “sampl[ing]” as an additional element. Final Action 8; Answer 5.
Therefore, in addition to the foregoing, we understand that the Examiner
also regards step “A” of claim 1 to be among the additional elements, rather
than part of the description of a judicial exception.
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

9
second reverse chronological time order starting from the final
instant of time of beat down to the instant of time of the initial
diastolic pressure; and
determining said energy efficiency as the ratio between
the impedance of the direct wave pressure and the impedance of
the reflected waves.
As to the categorization of these claim limitations, the Examiner, as
noted, likens them to claims considered in Grams and Electric Power. See
Answer 4. The Federal Circuit explained that the identified claim steps at
issue in Grams included “in essence a mathematical algorithm, in that they
represent ‘[a] procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem.’”
Grams, 888 F.2d at 837 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65
(1972)) (footnote omitted). In Electric Power, the Federal Circuit explained
that the court treats claims for “analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Electric
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
Accordingly, viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised Guidance
(see 84 Fed. Reg. at 52), we understand the Examiner’s position to be that
claim 1 recites either a mathematical concept or a mental process.
The Appellant does not squarely address the criteria for determining
whether a claim recites a judicial exception, but instead argues that claim 1,
for example, “relates to real world method steps” and that “[p]rocessing
blood pressure signals to provide an energy efficiency value provides an
indicator of overall patient health.” Appeal Br. 28–29. See also Reply
Br. 2–3.
The Appellant’s proposed “real world” (Appeal Br. 28) significance
of certain claim limitations does not persuade us of error, as to the inquiry of
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

10
Step 2A, Prong One. Indeed, the Supreme Court has explained that such a
consideration does not resolve the question of patent eligibility:
The fact that a computer necessarily exist[s] in the
physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm, is beside the
point. There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system
(in § 101 terms, a “machine”), or that many computer-
implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible
subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an
applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social
sciences by reciting a computer system configured to
implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the
determination of patent eligibility depend simply on the
draftsman’s art, thereby eviscerating the rule that [l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Therefore, the Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error, in
regard to Step 2A, Prong One.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong Two, unless a claim that recites a judicial
exception (such as an abstract idea) “integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of that exception,” the claim is “directed to” the
judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The
analysis of such an “integration into a practical application” involves
“[i]dentifying . . . any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements individually
and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.” Id. at 54–55. Among the considerations “indicative
that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated
the exception into a practical application” is whether “[a]n additional
element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

11
improvement to other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55 (footnote
omitted). “[W]hether an additional element or combination of elements
integrate[s] the exception into a practical application should be evaluated on
the claim as a whole.” Id. at 55 n.24.
The Appellant contends that “the present invention is an improvement
in the technology,” identifying portions of the Specification that refer to the
accuracy of blood pressure measurements, measuring blood pressure in a
“self-adapting manner” relative to variations in blood pressure, and the
“determination of a correction factor that estimates a maximum derivative of
ventricular pressure.” Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Spec. p. 4, l. 9 through p. 6,
l. 22).
However, even though the Appellant suggests that independent
claims 14 and 15 include the “self-adapting” feature (Appeal Br. 37, 40), the
Appellant does not adequately relate any of the purported improvements to
any specific claim language of any claim. Further, the Appellant does not
address other matters relating to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s application of the inquiries relevant to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. at 56), a
claim that recites a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea) might,
nevertheless, be patent-eligible, if the claim contains “additional elements
amount[ing] to significantly more than the exception itself” — i.e., “a
specific limitation or combination of limitations that [is] not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may be present.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

12
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
The Examiner states that claim 1 does not contain significantly more
than a judicial exception, explaining that both the “machine recited and
automating the processing” are “generic and routine in the art.” Answer 3.
See also Final Action 8. According to the Examiner, “[t]he machine itself is
not any particular machine suited only for this method but could be a general
purpose computer and sensor that simply executes the steps.” Answer 3.
The Appellant contends that the claimed use of pressure sensors to
determine a dynamic reflected impedance, which is then used to determine
an energy efficiency, is not routine and, furthermore, the Examiner “has not
provided any evidence to provide that such features are routine and well-
understood in the field of diagnostics.” Reply Br. 3. See also Appeal
Br. 29.
“Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to
a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.”
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the
Examiner’s determination that the additional elements of claim 1 are
“generic and routine in the art” (Answer 4) lacks the requisite evidentiary
support. Moreover, even if the referenced claim limitations could be
executed on a generic computer, this does not necessarily preclude them
from amounting to significantly more than a judicial exception. As the
Federal Circuit has explained:
Much of the advancement made in computer technology
consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature,
may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by
logical structures and processes. We do not see in Bilski or
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

13
Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to patenting this large field of
technological progress.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d, 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, the Appellant persuades us that the Examiner erred in
applying the analysis of Step 2B, such that we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 as being directed to an abstract idea without reciting
significantly more. Our analysis applies equally to independent claims 13,
14, and 15, as well as the dependent claims in the Appeal.
Altogether — and in view of the considerations discussed above,
concerning whether claims 14 and 15 are statutory subject matter, under
Step 1 — we sustain the rejection of independent claims 14 and 15 (along
with dependent claim 20) and we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13 (along with dependent claims 2–12 and 16–19) under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Enablement
Each of independent claims 14 and 15 recites, in part, a “coded means
for executing, when operating in connection with processing means of an
apparatus, the steps of a method.” (Emphasis added).
The Examiner states that each of the claimed “coded means” and
“processing means” invokes the means-plus-function provision, of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(f), and that the Specification fails to disclose corresponding structure,
material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Final Action 3.
Consequently, the Examiner regards claims 14 and 15 as failing to comply
with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), because the claimed
subject matter is not described in the Specification in a manner that would
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

14
enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Id.
The Appellant contends that claims 14 and 15 stand rejected
erroneously, because corresponding structure relating to the “coded means”
and the “processing means” purportedly appears in WO 2004/084088 A1,
which is allegedly incorporated by reference on page 10, lines 14–16, of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 16–17. See also Reply Br. 1–2.
In response, the Examiner states that the WO 2004/084088 A1
reference fails to provide the required enabling disclosure of the “coded
means” and “processing means” and, in any event, the identified reference is
not properly incorporated by reference:
The WO 2004/084088 reference seems to only disclose a
processing means in its specification but with no associated
structure. The WO 2004/084088 reference is also not properly
incorporated by reference and is not part of the chain of
continuity and fails to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.57.
Appellants have not clearly addressed the “coding means” or
shown how the specification is clear as to what the coding
means is or what structure it would have. Even if one surmises
the coding means is drawn to some computer related
component, it is unclear whether the means refers to hardware,
software, or some combination of both.
Answer 2.
Disputing the Examiner’s position, the Appellant contends that the
Specification “properly incorporates WO 2004/084088 A1 by reference.”
Reply Br. 1.
In part, 37 C.F.R. § 1.57 (entitled “Incorporation by reference”) states:
an incorporation by reference must be set forth in the
specification and must:
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

15
(1) Express a clear intent to incorporate by
reference by using the root words “incorporat(e)” and
“reference” (e.g., “incorporate by reference”); and
(2) Clearly identify the referenced patent,
application, or publication.
37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c). “Mere reference to another application, patent, or
publication is not an incorporation of anything therein into the application
containing such reference for the purpose of the disclosure required by
35 U.S.C. 112.” MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)(A) (citing In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d
671 (CCPA 1973)).
The portion of the Specification that, according to the Appellant,
would incorporate by reference particular material of WO 2004/084088 A1
refers to techniques for identifying particular points of a blood-pressure
signal, stating:
As a not limitative example, the heartbeat and the
corresponding pressure characteristic points can be
discriminated and individuated by means of a method as that
disclosed in WO 2004/084088.
Spec. 10, ll. 14–16.
We are not persuaded that this remark in the Specification
incorporates by reference the identified document WO 2004/084088 A1.
Contrary to 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c), the Specification does not “[e]xpress a clear
intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words ‘incorporat(e)’ and
‘reference’ (e.g., ‘incorporate by reference’).”
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s enablement rejection of claims 14 and 15, such that we sustain
the rejection of independent claims 14 and 15 (along with dependent
claim 20) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Appeal 2018-005470
Application 13/820,853

16
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Subject-matter
eligibility
14, 15, 20 1–13, 16–
19
14, 15, 20 112(a) Enablement 14, 15, 20
Overall Outcome 14, 15, 20 1–13, 16–
19

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-IN-PART