Ecolean AB

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 19, 2021

2020004503 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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. 15/556,823 09/08/2017 Magnus BORGSTRÖM 4109.625BS 1360 86636 7590 10/19/2021 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. 1925 BALLENGER AVENUE, STE. 560 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER GOFF II, JOHN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1746 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2021 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 MAGNUS BORGSTRÖM, LENNART FRIBERG, and LARS ÖSTHOLM Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 Technology Center 1700 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application 15/556,823 filed Sept. 8, 2017 (“the ’823 App.”); the Final Office Action dated June 12, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 4, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed June 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. A video teleconference hearing was held on October 4, 2021, a transcript of which is of record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible type. Spec. 1, ll. 4–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible type comprising providing a first seal extending transverse a filling channel of the flexible package, and providing a second seal extending transverse the filling channel of the flexible package said second seal overlapping said first seal such that a combined seal is provided comprising a top portion formed solely by a first sealing unit, an intermediate portion formed by the first and a second sealing unit, and a bottom portion formed solely by the second sealing unit, characterized by setting operating parameters comprising a time parameter, a temperature parameter and a pressure parameter for providing said first seal and for providing said second seal such that a sealing characteristic below a threshold value is 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Ecolean AB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 3 obtained in said top portion and said bottom portion and such that a sealing characteristic equal to or above the threshold value is obtained in said intermediate portion. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Name Reference Date Carnegie, Jr. US 4,055,456 Oct. 25, 1977 Yoshikawa et al. (“Yoshikawa”) US 2008/0091299 A1 Apr. 17, 2008 Hesser GB 943,457 Dec. 4, 1963 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: A. Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 over Hesser in view of Yoshikawa. B. Claims 4–6 over Hesser and Yoshikawa, further in view of Carnegie. Final Act. 2, 6. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (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 contentions, we are not persuaded that reversible error has been Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 4 identified, and we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 7, and 8 over Hesser in view of Yoshiikawa Appellant argues claims 1–3 as a group. See Appeal Br. 10. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. Claims 2 and 3 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Appeal Br. 10. We separately address Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 7 and 8, which depend from claim 1. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Hesser discloses the limitations of claim 1, except for “setting operating parameters comprising a time parameter, a temperature parameter and a pressure parameter,” for which the Examiner relies on Yoshikawa. Final Act. 2–3. Hesser’s Figures 1 to 5 are reproduced below. Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 5 Figures 1 to 4 are cross-sectional views illustrating various stages in the manufacture of a closure. Hesser 2, ll. 50–52. Figure 5 is a perspective view of the upper end of a bag closed in the method of Figures 1 to 4 in which surplus bag material above seam 6, 10 is folded over and additionally connected by a weld seam 12 to the lower part 14 of the surplus. Id. 2, ll, 53–55, 119–125. The Examiner finds that the “second sealing unit” limitation reads on elements 3 and 4 of Hesser, the “first sealing unit” limitation reads on elements 7–9, the “first seal” limitation reads on element 6, and the “second seal” limitation reads on element 10. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that “first” and “second” as used in claim 1 requires two seals and two Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 6 sealing units, but not any particular order of sealing or any particular sealing unit forming a particular seal. Id. at 3. The Examiner finds that second seal 10 overlaps first seal 6, creating an intermediate portion. Id. at 2. The Examiner finds that the claim terms “a sealing characteristic below a threshold value” and “a sealing characteristic below a threshold value” read on the presence or absence of bubbles respectively, in the seam, noting that the absence of bubbles in the intermediate portion results in “a surprising high degree of strength.” Id. at 3–4 (citing the discussion on Hesser 2, 6 regarding the impact of the presence of bubbles in a seal). The Examiner finds that it is well understood in the art of sealing packaging that parameters for automating the sealing comprise a time parameter, a temperature parameter, and a pressure parameter as evidenced by Yoshikawa. Id. at 3. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use operating parameters as evidenced by Yoshikawa to automate provision of the first and second seals. Id. Appellant proffers several arguments in response to the rejection. We address each in turn. First, Appellant argues that the Examiner identifies the claimed first seal as two different structures in Hesser, i.e., elements 6 and 10, making the rejection ambiguous and impossible to review due to alleged picking and choosing of features. Appeal Br. 6–7. We disagree with Appellant’s contention. The Examiner consistently identifies the first seal of claim 1 as element 6 in Hesser. See Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 9. Appellant’s argument appears to be based at least partially on the Examiner’s identification of Hesser’s elements 3 and 4 as the second sealing Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 7 unit forming the first seal. See id. The Examiner correctly notes that claim 1 does not require any particular sealing unit to form any particular seal. See Final Act. 3. “[A]lthough a method claim necessarily recites the steps of the method in a particular order, as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the patent claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). At most, the Specification indicates that “[a]ccording to one embodiment the method further comprises transferring the flexible package from the first sealing unit to the second sealing unit.” Spec. 7, ll. 28–30 (emphasis added). Claim 2 echoes this language (see Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.)), implying that the further restriction is not required in independent claim 1. Appellant does not direct us to any evidence, such as a portion of the Specification, in support of Appellant’s contention that claim 1 should be narrowly interpreted as requiring the first sealing unit operate before the second sealing unit. See In re Hampel, 162 F.2d 483, 485 (CCPA 1947) (specific order of steps may be prima facie obvious when “[t]here is nothing in the instant record which indicates that the particular order of steps produces results differing in any way from those which would be brought about if another order of steps were followed.”); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). As a second point, Appellant argues that Hesser does not disclose the “overlapping” required of the first and second seals, and is “completely silent with respect to” a top portion, intermediate portion, and bottom portion, asserting that Hesser’s “‘shrunken seam 6’ and ‘sealed seam 10’” Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 8 are merely adjacent to one another. Appeal Br. 7. However, Hesser teaches producing a shrunken seam by welding jaws followed by applying a secondary hot pressing by suitable pressing jaws to a part of the width of this seam. Hesser 1, ll. 76–83. The Examiner identifies the seal formed by Hesser elements 7–9 as the first sealing unit and the seal formed by Hesser elements 3–4 as the second sealing unit, which accords with claim 1’s requirements. See Final Act. 2–3. Hesser also teaches pressing seam 6 again “approximately over half its width nearest the top end of the bag” by means of a further pair of pressing jaws. Id. 2, ll. 88–93. In addition, Hesser’s Figures 2–5—especially Figure 3—show seal 6 and seal 10 overlapping each other. Appellant’s contention that Hesser’s element 9, a resistance strip, does not correspond to the entire height of jaws 8 simply does not support a lack of overlap of seal 6 and seal 10, which overlap is demonstrated in Hesser’s written description and figures. Appellant’s third argument is Hesser is silent with respect to the claimed “operating parameters” and “threshold value,” and the Examiner ignores these features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner relies on Yoshikawa, not Hesser, for operating parameters of time, temperature, and pressure. Final Act. 3. “Non- obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 recites that a sealing characteristic is below (top and bottom portions), or equal to or above (intermediate portion) a threshold value. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Neither “sealing characteristic” nor Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 9 “threshold value” are defined in the Specification. The Specification indicates that operating parameters are set such that a sealing characteristic below a threshold value is obtained in said top portion and said bottom portion and such that a sealing characteristic above the threshold value is obtained in said intermediate portion. Thereby, a sufficient seal may be provided in the intermediate portion. A quality of the seal may be adjusted by adjusting the time parameter, the temperature parameter and the pressure parameter. By way of example, the seal may be improved by at least one of using a higher temperature, using a higher pressure, and by letting the first and/or the second sealing unit operate during a longer period of time. . . . [B]oth the first and [second] seals are needed to provide a sufficient seal. By sufficient seal is here meant that the seal, or combined seal, fulfils [sic] a set of seal criteria. The seal criteria may comprise a strength criterium, . . . , etc. Spec. 6, ll. 1–13, 23–26. The threshold value corresponds to the sealing characteristics of a seal having been exposed to a proper sealing process in order to form a sufficient or functional seal. Id. 19, ll. 3–5. Thus, a “sufficient seal” as found in the intermediate portion meets the sealing characteristics and is equal to or above the threshold value, which may meet or exceed a strength criterium. Hesser discloses that bubbles or blisters produced by particles that develop vapors or gases on heating may develop within the welding seam (6), but disappear in the zone of secondary pressing (10). Hesser 1, ll. 67– 70; 2, ll. 28–33, 39–43. This secondary pressing achieves “a proper firm and sealed weld seam.” Id. 2, ll. 43–44; 2, ll. 97–100 (“an intimate connection of the material of the two walls 1, 2 of the bag in this area” is achieved). As Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 10 the Examiner finds, the seal resulting from the combination of the first and second seals is without bubbles and has “a surprising high degree of strength.” Ans. 12 (citing Hesser 1, l. 71–2, l. 6, 39–44). Thus, the Examiner cites evidence in support of the finding that “strength” and “bubbles” may be considered to be sealing characteristics “wherein the threshold value for the sealing characteristic of strength is a seam sealed with both the first and second seals, and the threshold value for the sealing characteristic of bubbles is a seam without bubbles,” such that a sealing characteristic below a threshold value is obtained in the top portion and the bottom portion by Hesser, and a sealing characteristic equal to or above the threshold value is obtained in the intermediate portion. See id. at 13. Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 9) does not address persuasively the rejection that the Examiner presents. Appellant’s fourth argument is that “Hesser fails to disclose [] setting a threshold as recited in Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 13. We note, however, that claim 1 recites setting operating parameters, but not setting a threshold. See Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Hesser sufficiently teaches “a threshold value” as recited in claim 1 by disclosing that removal of bubbles or blisters in the combined seal produces a “firm and sealed weld seam.” See Hesser 2, ll. 39–44. Appellant argues that “one skilled in the art would understand shrunken seam 10 [sic] would be functional if no bubbles are present, i.e. that the operating parameters are set such that the sealing characteristics of the first seal is equal or above the threshold value if the sealing zone is clean.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant thus urges that Hesser does not provide a sealing characteristic that behaves according to a threshold value, and, in Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 11 fact, teaches away. Id. However, Hesser teaches avoiding the disadvantages of closing a bag by only a single sealing unit, instead employing a second sealing unit. Hesser 2, ll. 76–80. Hesser cannot be said to teach away from the claimed process, which requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant direct us to no portion of Hesser supporting a contention that the reference teaches away from a sealing characteristic that behaves according to a threshold value. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Hesser teaches only a single seal, not two seals. Reply Br. 7–8. Appellant contends that Hesser’s first heat treatment results in a seam—not a seal—and the second heat treatment treats the same seam area a second time. Id. at 8. Appellant notes that Hesser refers to “seam 6” rather than “seal 6.” Id. at 9. Appellant’s argument is untimely because it is a new argument presented for the first time in the Reply Brief. The Examiner has had no opportunity to respond. The argument could have been, but was not, presented in the Appeal Brief. Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, a new argument not timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”); compare also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief is considered waived); see also 37 Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 12 C.F.R. § 41.37 and § 41.41. Because the record contains no such showing, we will not consider the new argument in the Reply Brief. On balance, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Hesser in view of Yoshikawa for the reasons expressed by the Examiner and set forth supra. For the same reasons as claim 1, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). . Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said first and second seals are provided extending in parallel.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that seal 6 and seal 10 of Hesser are provided extending in parallel. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues that “the rejection is confusing and, ultimately, incomplete.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to analyze any of the Graham factors with respect to claim 7, such that Appellant “lacks the kind of information necessary to give [it]sufficient notice to be able to effectively respond.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. We first note that Examiner’s discussion of claim 1 is pertinent to the subject matter of claim 7. Final Act. 2–5. As we also note above, the Examiner identified the components of Hesser that meet the limitation of this claim. Final Act 6. In the Answer, the Examiner further clarified that at least Hesser Figure 5 illustrates seal 6 and seal 10 “extending in parallel.” Ans. 12. Thus, Appellant’s argument is without merit. Claim 8 Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 13 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “wherein said first and/or second seal is provided by a sealing unit comprising a permanently heated sealing jaw.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Hesser’s sealing unit 3, 4 comprises “a continuously heated sealing jaw considered permanently heated as there is no description the jaw is at any time not heated.” Final Act. 6. As with claim 8, Appellant argues that “the rejection is confusing and, ultimately, incomplete.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to analyze any of the Graham factors with respect to claim 8, such that Appellant “lacks the kind of information necessary to give [it]sufficient notice to be able to effectively respond.” Id. (Appellant also makes the argument that “Hesser is completely silent with respect to whether [elements 6 and 10 of Hesser] are ‘provided extending in parallel,’” which is not a limitation of claim 8.) We again direct Appellant to the Examiner’s discussion of claim 1 to resolve any confusion related to the rejection. In addition, Hesser discloses continuously heated welding jaws and permanently heated welding jaws interchangeably to distinguish from temporarily heated welding jaws. Compare Hesser 1, ll. 15–30 (weld seams made by temporarily heating jaws only have a part of the strength) with id. 1, ll. 36–40 (heating the sheets to fusion temperature by permanently heated pressing jaws) and 76–80 (producing a shrunken seam by continuously heated welding jaws). Appellant fails to persuade us of reversible error by a preponderance of the evidence of record. B. Obviousness of Claims 4–6 over Hesser in view of Yoshiikawa and Carnegie Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 14 Claims 4–6 depend from claim 1 and further recite limitations on the width of the first seal (claim 4), the width of the second seal (claim 5), or the width of the intermediate portion (claim 6) is in the range of 1 to 5 millimeters. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Carnegie to teach the claimed width of the first seal, second seal, or intermediate portion. Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Carnegie teaches that conventional seal width is 1.6 mm to 3.2 mm. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Carnegie’s seal width in Hesser as modified by Yoshikawa to have a seal width of about 3.2 mm so that the intermediate portion of the combined seal would have a high degree of strength with a width of 1.6 mm, as such widths are conventional and predictable for a package seal. Id. Appellant argues that Carnegie fails to disclose a conventional seal, instead disclosing washing, baking, and drying a laminate. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also argues that the Examiner fails to analyze the Graham factors, specifically the scope and content of Carnegie and whether it constitutes analogous art. Id. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in rejecting claims 4–6. Carnegie concerns an impulse heat-sealing machine for forming a liquid leakproof seal joining flexible thermoplastic resin films. Carnegie, Abstract. A heater element is at least one-sixteenth inch (equal to 1.6 mm) in width to form the leakproof seal. Id., col. 2, ll. 46–48; see also id., col. 4, ll. 49–52 (“The width of the heater elements is usually one-sixteenth to one- eighth of an inch and they determine the width of the leakproof seal.”). Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 15 The Examiner’s findings regarding Carnegie describes adequately the scope and content of Carnegie as relevant to the rejection. See Ans. 14. Carnegie teaches that the heater width is 1.6 mm to 3.2 mm, as compared to the claims requirement of a width of 1 to 5 mm, thus the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275 (CCPA 1980) (where ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness is made out); see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (same). The Examiner explains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that seal widths disclosed by Carnegie are conventional and predictable for a package seal. Final Act. 6. Appellant raised no issues in relation to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Carnegie is not analogous art. See Appeal Br. 11. “Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. 1992). The scope of analogous art is to be construed broadly. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To label a reference as analogous art “merely connotes that it is relevant to a consideration of obviousness under § 103 as ‘prior art.’” In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Our reviewing court explains that two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 16 (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Focusing on the first of the two tests above, we determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. We thus consider all explanations of the inventors’ subject matter while keeping in mind that prior art is analogous when it “is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed. . . .” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325– 26 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, “field of endeavor” should not be defined narrowly based only upon the specific problem addressed. According to the Specification, the inventive concept relates to a method for sealing a flexible package of collapsible type. Spec., 1, ll. 4–6. “A package of collapsible type typically comprises a filling chamber in which a product, such as a liquid, may be contained.” Id., 1, ll. 9–10. The package is sealed subsequent to filling so that the product cannot escape from the filling chamber. Id., 1, ll. 12–13. The sealing may be performed by placing the package between engagement surfaces of a pair of heated jaws, pressing the sheets together to provide a seam. Id., 1, ll. 13–20. Based on this disclosure, Carnegie is in the same field of endeavor. But, if Carnegie were not in the same field of endeavor, it would be reasonably pertinent—and thus analogous art—if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem because of the matter with which it deals. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Klein, 647 Appeal 2020-004503 Application 15/556,823 17 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (same standard). An ordinarily skilled artisan seeking to heat-seal two films would logically have considered Carnegie. The Examiner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 4–6 are obvious over the combination of Hesser, Yoshikawa, and Carnegie. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 is sustained. More specifically, DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7, 8 103 Hesser, Yoshikawa 1–3, 7, 8 4–6 103 Hesser, Yoshikawa, Carnegie 4–6 Overall Outcome 1–8 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED