Dish Network L.L.C.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 20, 2021

2020000150 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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. 15/695,856 09/05/2017 Gregory H. Greene P2017-05-05/290110.683 6659 70336 7590 04/20/2021 Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110) 701 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER WANG, JIN CHENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/20/2021 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GREGORY H. GREENE ____________________ Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). According to Appellant, DISH Network L.L.C. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER A graphics adjustment system that prevents digital video output from a receiving device from being cut off when presented to a presentation device. Abstract. In particular, the graphics adjustment system detects the video resolution of digital video to be output, saves a graphics setting adjustment made by a user, and applies the saved graphics setting adjustment to future digital video content having the same resolution. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for video graphics adjustment comprising: detecting, by at least one processor of a receiving device, a resolution of digital video content to be output from the receiving device to a display; in response to the detecting the resolution of the digital video content to be output from the receiving device to the display, retrieving, by at least one processor of the receiving device, based on the detected resolution of the digital video content, a previously stored video graphics adjustment setting having a previously stored association with the detected resolution of the digital video content, the previously stored association being that application of the video graphics adjustment setting to digital video content having the detected resolution avoids edges of digital video frames of digital video content having the detected resolution being cut of when presented on the display; and in response to the at least one processor of the receiving device retrieving the previously stored video graphics adjustment setting having the previously stored association with the detected resolution of the digital video content to be output from the receiving device, applying, by at least one processor of the receiving device, the previously stored video graphics adjustment setting to the digital video content to be output from the receiving device before the digital video content to be output from the receiving device is presented on the display. Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Miyazaki et al. (US 2010/0066909 A1, Mar. 18, 2010) (“Miyazaki”) and Kudo (US 2010/0053442 A1, Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 10–49. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Miyazaki, Kudo, and Wang et al. (US 2018/0130180 A1, May 10, 2018) (“Wang”). Final Act. 49–50. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rejection of Independent claim 1 Appellant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the Examiner’s rejection is in error as the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo does not teach “in response to the detecting the resolution of the digital video content . . . retrieving…based on the detected resolution . . . a previously stored video graphics adjustment setting having a previously stored association with the detected resolution of the digital video content.” Reply Br. 4–9; Appeal Br. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 6, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed October 4, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed November 28, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 8, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 4 9–10. Appellant contends that Kudo teaches “changing to a different video size according to a particular event (i.e., a particular television program), not in response to detection of the resolution of the digital video content of the program.” Reply Br. 5; Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that video size is different than video resolution. Reply Br. 6–9; Appeal Br. 10 (both citing Kudo ¶¶ 161–165). The Examiner finds that Miyazaki teaches a main processor that detects the resolution of a video signal (Ans. 11 (citing Miyazaki ¶¶ 95–96)), and further, that a receiver performs video scaling processing, i.e., video graphics adjustment, “after detecting of the input video resolution.” Ans. 11 (citing Miyazaki ¶¶ 49, 95–96). The Examiner additionally finds that the main processor updates resolution registration information. Id. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief address Kudo for allegedly failing to teach the disputed limitations above (Reply Br. 4–12; Appeal Br. 9–10), whereas the Examiner made findings that Miyazaki teaches those claim limitations. We have reviewed the cited portions of Miyazaki and agree with the Examiner that they teach the disputed limitation above. Specifically, Miyazaki teaches that “scaling processing of the main and backend processors MP and BP must be individually changed in accordance with the resolution of a video.” Miyazaki ¶ 49. To execute the scaling processing, Miyazaki teaches detecting the resolution of the video signal based on a decoding result, “and confirm[ing] based on this detected resolution whether the input and output resolutions of the main and backend processors MP and BP are to be changed.” Id. ¶ 95 (emphases added); see also Miyazaki Fig. 7A, depicting, inter alia, BLOCKS 706–711 as steps for Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 5 detecting the resolution, executing scaling processing based on the detected resolution, and updating the resolution registration information to associate the corrected scaling setting with the detected resolution. Accordingly, Miyazaki teaches in response to detecting the video resolution, retrieving, based on the detected resolution, a previously stored scaling change, i.e., video graphics adjustment setting, having a previously stored confirmation as to whether the input and output resolutions are to be changed, i.e., previously stored association, with the detected resolution of the video content. Appellant contends, in response to the Examiner’s findings in Miyazaki, that “Miyazaki teaches associating ‘respective pieces of service identification information’ with the resolution,” and that these pieces of service identification information “are not previously stored graphics adjustment settings.” Reply Br. 14 (citing Miyazaki ¶ 73). Appellant argues that the claimed invention does not require service identification information, but only detected resolution and a previously stored graphics setting for that resolution. Reply Br. 14 (citing Miyazaki ¶ 73). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (CCPA 1982). As discussed above, Miyazaki’s previously stored confirmation as to whether the input and output resolutions are to be changed, i.e., scaling processing, based on a detected resolution (see Miyazaki at Fig. 7A, ¶¶ 49, 95–96), maps to the claimed previously stored graphics adjustment setting having a previously stored association with the detected resolution. Furthermore, claim 1 recites the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising.” See claim 1. The claim, therefore, does not limit the Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 6 automated changes to the graphics adjustment setting to be enabled entirely or solely by the detected resolution and previously stored associated graphics setting. In other words, the claim does not preclude the previously stored graphics adjustment setting of the references from having a previously stored association with other items in addition to the detected resolution and previously stored graphics setting. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” (citations omitted)). Appellant additionally argues that Miyazaki fails to teach that the previously stored association avoids edges of the digital video frames of digital video content being cut off when presented on the display, as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant argues that Miyazaki does not teach storing scaling specifically to avoid edges from being cut off. Id. However, the Examiner cites Kudo for the teaching of the previously stored association being that application that avoids edges of frames being cut off. Ans. 18–21 (citing, inter alia, Kudo ¶¶ 124–29). As such, Appellant’s argument attacking Miyazaki singly for an individual shortcoming (Reply Br. 15), without considering the combination of the references, is not an effective argument against obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 7 Appellant further alleges that the motivation proffered by the Examiner to combine the teachings of Miyazaki and Kudo, namely to avoid video content being cut off, amounts to impermissible hindsight. Reply Br. 10–11; see also Final Act. 18. We disagree. We are guided that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).). Here, the Examiner cites, inter alia, Kudo at paragraphs 12 and 124, in the rejection of claim 1. Final Act. 10–18. Specifically, Kudo teaches that a problem in the art is that some video “having side panels may actually be displayed in such a manner that video portions that should be displayed are omitted” (Kudo ¶ 12); and that when “side panel portions of [commercial message] video are . . . removed . . . , part of the [commercial message] information is lost. This problem, that is, the loss of part of [commercial message] information, can be solved . . . .” Id. ¶ 124. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale to combine the teachings of Miyazaki and Kudo is founded in the teachings of Kudo, not impermissible hindsight gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 6 and 7 which are dependent on claim 1 and rejected on the same grounds. Arguments directed to claims 18– 20 refer to arguments presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, and 18–20 over Miyazaki and Kudo. Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 8 Rejection of Independent claim 9 Appellant argues that the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo fails to teach each and every element of claim 9. Appeal Br. 10–11. In particular, Appellant argues that the combination does not teach the claimed “associate the video graphics adjustment setting with the resolution of the first different digital video content that was output to the display.” Id. at 10 (emphases added). Appellant points to the Examiner’s reliance on Kudo to teach this limitation. Id. at 11 (citing Kudo ¶ 124). Appellant argues that Kudo teaches associating the video graphics setting with content or an event, such as a volume level indicating that the content is a commercial, not with a detected resolution of the content or event. Reply Br. 16–18; Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive to show error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. The Examiner points, inter alia, to arguments and findings proffered with respect to claim 1 (see Ans. 3–26). Ans. 49–53 (discussing “Arguments in (A)”). For the same reasons as discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we agree that Miyazaki teaches associating the video graphics setting with the detected resolution. See supra at 4–6; Ans. 11; Miyazaki ¶¶ 49, 95–96. Furthermore, claim 9 does not preclude additional elements, such a channel or program, from also being associated with the graphics adjustment setting, for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. See supra, at 5–6. Appellant presents no more separate arguments for claim 9. See Reply Br. 16–18; Appeal Br. 10–11. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to claims 15 and 16 which are Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 9 rejected on the same grounds and depend therefrom. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 9, 15, and 16 over Miyazaki and Kudo. Rejections of Remainder of the Dependent claims. Appellant presents several arguments directed to the remainder of the dependent claims, which present us with four issues. – The first issue is presented with respect to claims 2 and 10, and is based upon the assertions the Examiner erred in finding the combined references teach the actions of detecting the resolution and the claimed associating. Reply Br. 18–24; Appeal Br. 12–14. – The second issue is presented with respect to claims 8 and 17 and is based upon the assertion the Examiner erred in finding the combined references teach repositioning of the video frames. Reply Br. 25, 27–28; Appeal Br. 15–17. – The third issue is presented with respect to claim 12, and is based upon the assertion the Examiner erred in finding the combined references teach the claimed three different digital video contents. Reply Br. 26; Appeal Br. 15–16. – The fourth issue is presented with respect to claim 13, and is based upon the assertion the Examiner erred in finding the combined references teach a video resolution higher than HD resolution. Reply Br. 26–27; Appeal Br. 16. We address these arguments individually and in turn: Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 10 First issue. With respect to the first issue, we note initially that claim 10 is argued concurrently with claim 2 because of similar recitations of an “associat[ing]” feature. Compare claim 2, with claim 10; see also Appeal Br. 14. However, Appellant presents additional arguments directed specifically to features recited only in claim 2. Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 21–24. Accordingly, we address Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 2 separately from those directed to claim 10. With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues that the combination of references fails to teach, inter alia, before the detecting the resolution, outputting digital video content wherein edges of the frames are cut off when presented on the display. Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 18–24. Based on our review of Miyazaki and Kudo and the Examiner’s cited portions of those references, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner does not provide adequate evidence and explanation to show that the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo clearly teaches the features above. See Final Act. 18–22 (citing Kudo Fig. 2A, ¶¶ 12, 60–66, 124); Ans. 27–31 (citing Miyazaki Fig. 1A, ¶¶ 53, 84; Kudo Figs. 1, 2A–2D, ¶¶ 58–61, 90, 111–120, 122, 124–132, 148). Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2 and its respective dependent claims 3–5. Turning to Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, Appellant contends that the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo does not teach the claimed “associate the different video graphics adjustment setting with the different resolution of the second different digital video content that was output to the display.” Appeal Br. 12–14. In particular, Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 11 Appellant argues that the video size taught by Kudo is not video resolution (id. at 12–13; Reply Br. 18–20, 22), and further, that the video sizes of Kudo are associated with events or commercial periods, rather than a video graphics adjustment setting. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 20. Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner “improperly refers to Miyazaki when alleging what Kudo [d]iscloses.” Reply Br. 20–21. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 10. Appellant’s arguments are substantively the same as those presented with respect to claim 1 (see supra, at 4–5), and are unpersuasive for the same reasons as indicated above. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 and claim 11 depending therefrom, rejected based upon Miyazaki and Kudo. Second issue. With respect to the second issue, Appellant makes substantively the same arguments for claim 8 as for claim 17, and we, therefore, address Appellant’s arguments directed to these claims together. Specifically, Appellant argues that the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo does not teach that the graphics adjustment setting includes “a repositioning of frames,” as required in claims 8 and 17, because Figures 2A–2D, 3A, and 3B of Kudo illustrate cropping or resizing content of the frame, rather than changing the position of the frame. Appeal Br. 15, 16–17; Reply Br. 25, 27–28. This argument has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8 and 17. Proper claim construction requires a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Bond, 910 Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 12 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, the Specification discloses that graphics adjustments, “such as resizing or repositioning [of] the frames of the digital video,” may be made before an overscan. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 28. The Specification continues, “[f]or example, the resizing of the digital video content may include downscaling of [the] digital video frames . . . . In some embodiments, such [a graphics adjustment] may indicate an x,y pixel coordinates defining an area in which the digital video information is to be rendered or presented.” Id. ¶ 28. As such, the Specification is silent as to the scope of “repositioning,” and additionally, does not elucidate whether “repositioning” is distinct from “resizing” or merely used as a synonym. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 28. Accordingly, we determine that a broadest reasonable construction of “repositioning” consistent with the Specification at least includes resizing of frames. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Figures 2A–2D, 3A, and 3B of Kudo and paragraphs 55 and 91 of Miyazaki (Final Act. 28; Ans. 38–39) teach a repositioning or resizing of frames as the term is construed consistent with the Specification. Moreover, even were we to construe a broadest reasonable interpretation of “repositioning” as requiring the video frames to have a changed position, as Appellant argues (see Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 25), the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo would teach a repositioning of frames, at least inasmuch as the combination teaches changing the locations of the edges of the frames such that the frames cover the entire display, rather than only a portion of the display. See Kudo Figs. 2A–2D, 3A, 3B; Miyazaki ¶¶ 55, 91. Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 13 As Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue are the only issues presented with respect to claims 8 and 17, both rejected based upon Miyazaki and Kudo, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims. Third issue. With respect to the third issue, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not map any features in Miyazaki or Kudo to the claimed first, second, and third different digital video contents recited in claim 12 (Appeal Br. 15– 16; Reply Br. 26); and does not indicate a previously stored graphics adjustment setting associated with the detected resolution of the third video content that is different than a previously stored graphics adjustment setting associated with the detected resolution of the first video content. Reply Br. 26. These arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. Notably, the Examiner finds that Miyazaki teaches at paragraphs 55, 56, and 64 first (480i or 480p), second (720p), and third (1080i) different digital video contents that each have a different detected resolution. Ans. 37 (citing Miyazaki ¶¶ 55–56, 64). Miyazaki further teaches that the scaling, i.e., previously stored graphics adjustment setting, associated with each of the detected resolutions is different. See Miyazaki ¶ 56 (“the digital television broadcast receiver settles scaling processing for converting the predicted resolution into that of the video display.” “Also, the digital television broadcast receiver updates the resolution registration information by the actual resolution of the video signal . . . , thus improving the efficiency of the next scaling processing.”). Based on the above findings Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 14 in Miyazaki, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the graphics adjustment settings of Miyazaki are not associated with resolutions of first, second, and third different digital video content output to the display. Reply Br. 26 (citing Miyazaki ¶ 73). Furthermore, to the extent that Appellant argues that the graphics adjustment settings of Miyazaki are also associated with service identification information (Reply Br. 26), claim 12 does not preclude the references from associating the graphics adjustment settings with other items in addition to the detected resolution for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. See supra, at 5–6. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, rejected based upon Miyazaki and Kudo. Fourth issue. With respect to the fifth issue, Appellant contends that the combination of Miyazaki and Kudo does not teach outputting digital video resolution higher than HD resolution, as recited in claim 13. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 26–27. Based on the evidence before us, we agree with Appellant that neither paragraph 124 of Kudo (see Final Act. 42–43) nor paragraph 84 of Miyazaki (Ans. 39) teaches a video resolution higher than HD. Specifically, we find nothing in Kudo that teaches any of the commercial message, HD super live size, or full size videos having a resolution higher than HD. See Kudo ¶ 124. Similarly, neither of the Miyazaki “1440x1080” or “1920x1080” resolutions are higher than HD. See Miyazaki ¶ 84; Spec. ¶ 27 (disclosing 1920 x 1080 pixels as being high definition). Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 15 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 in view of Miyazaki and Kudo. However, Claim 14 depends from claim 13, but is rejected over a different combination of references, namely Miyazaki, Kudo, and Wang. Final Act. 49–50. In the rejection of claim 14, the Examiner cites to Wang as teaching content with a higher resolution than HD, video with at least 3840 pixels x 2160 lines. Final Act. 49 (citing Wang ¶ 375). Appellant presents no arguments directed to claim 14, and we conclude that the Examiner’s reference to Wang remedies the deficiencies of Miyazaki and Kudo with respect to the claimed video resolution that is higher than HD resolution. Final Act. 49–50. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14 in view of Miyazaki, Kudo, and Wang and now also reject claim 13 under the same grounds. New Ground of Rejection We enter a new ground of rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings for Miyazaki, Kudo, and Wang. The Examiner’s rationale in the rejection of claim 14 applies to the new ground of rejection of claim 13. We recognize that in addressing Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 13 and 14, we relied upon teachings in the prior art which were not cited by the Examiner. Accordingly, we designate the rejection of claim 13 as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) so that Appellant has an opportunity to respond to these new findings. Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 16 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–4, 6– 13, 15–20 103 Miyazaki, Kudo 1, 6–12, 15– 20 2–4, 13 5, 14 103 Miyazaki, Kudo, Wang 14 5 13 103 Miyazaki, Kudo, Wang 13 Overall Outcome 1, 6–12, 14– 20 2–5, 13 13 This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Appeal 2020-000150 Application 15/695,856 17 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)