Ex Parte Ahmed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13689862 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/689,862
72823 7590
Quinn IP Law
21500 Haggerty Road
Suite 300
Northville, MI 48167
11/30/2012
09/27/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AdeelAhmed
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P019617-GMVE-RRM 2410
EXAMINER
AMICK, JACOB M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3747
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
adomagala@quinniplaw.com
USDocketing@quinniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADEEL AHMED and BRIAN L. SPOHN
(Applicant: GM Global Technology Operations LLC)
Appeal 2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
3 decision finally rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-17. We have jurisdiction
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
According to page 4 of the "Appeal Brief under 35 U.S.C. 134," dated
Oct. 29, 2015 ("Appeal Brief'), GM Global Technology Operations LLC of
Detroit, Michigan, is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, as well as the real
party in interest. The United States of America also has an interest in this
application, as set forth on page 4 of the Appeal Brief.
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
2 § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Prior (US 2011/0088378 Al, publ. Apr.
3 21, 2011) and Uzkan (US 2004/0140366 Al, publ. July 22, 2004).
4 We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 17 under
5 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Prior (US
6 2011/0088378 Al, publ. Apr. 21, 2011), Pfeffinger (US 6,772,715 B2,
7 issued Aug. 10, 2004) and Park (US 2012/0048504 Al, publ. Mar. 1, 2012).
8 In addition, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 10 under§ I03(a)
9 as being unpatentable over Prior and Gering (US 2005/0167169 Al, publ.
10 Aug. 4, 2005); the rejection of claims 7 and 11 under§ I03(a) as being
11 unpatentable over Prior and Suzuki (US 2010/0175650 Al, publ. July 15,
12 2010); the rejection of claim 13 under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over
13 Prior, Gering and Suzuki; or the rejection of claim 15 under§ I03(a) as
14 being unpatentable over Prior and Uzkan.
15
16 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
1 7 The appealed claims are directed to a motor vehicle powertrain
18 including an engine coolant circuit that "enables the transfer of heat among
19 the various components of the powertrain, and includes the ability to
20 recapture heat in the exhaust gas for heating transmission oil [ and a] heater
21 core (for heating a passenger compartment)." (Spec. par. 6). Claims 1 and 4
22 are independent. Claim 4 recites:
23 4. A powertrain comprising:
24 an engme;
25 an exhaust system including an exhaust passageway in
26 fluid communication with the engine;
2 7 an exhaust gas heat exchanger;
2
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 a transmission having a transmission cooling system;
2 a transmission heat exchanger;
3 a heater core configured to transfer heat to a passenger
4 compartment;
5 a pump;
6 an engine coolant circuit providing fluid communication
7 between the engine, the exhaust gas heat exchanger, the
8 transmission heat exchanger, the heater core, and the pump;
9 wherein the exhaust gas heat exchanger is operatively
10 connected to the exhaust system and configured to transfer heat
11 between the engine coolant circuit and the exhaust system;
12 wherein the transmission heat exchanger is operatively
13 connected to the transmission cooling system and configured to
14 transfer heat between the engine coolant circuit and the
15 transmission cooling system;
16 a plurality of variable restriction orifices configured to
17 control the fluid flow through respective portions of the engine
18 coolant circuit; and
19 wherein the plurality of variable restriction orifices
20 includes a first variable restriction orifice that is configured to
21 control fluid flow through the transmission heat exchanger and a
22 second variable restriction orifice that is configured to control
23 fluid flow through the heater core.
24
25 ISSUES
26 The Appellant argues the patentability of claims 1, 4, 15 and 16
27 separately. Therefore, this case turns on three issues:
28 First, would it have been obvious to reposition a pump 62 in a third
29 coolant circuit in the coolant system described by Prior to a first coolant
30 circuit, so as to position the pump 62 proximal to the return to an engine 12,
31 or adjacent to the heater core 16, in Prior's system?
3
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 Second, would Uzkan's description of a locomotive layover system
2 having a variable restriction orifice for controlling flow across a main
3 radiator have suggested placing a plurality of variable restriction orifices in a
4 coolant system such as Prior' s to control flow within the system?
5 Third, would the combined teachings of Prior and Uzkan have
6 suggested a powertrain in which a transmission heat exchanger and a heater
7 core were arranged in parallel fluid communication?
8
9 FINDINGS OF FACT
10 The record supports the following findings of fact ("FF") by a
11 preponderance of the evidence.
12
13 Prior
14 1. Prior describes a motor vehicle 110 including an internal
15 combustion engine 12; a transmission 14; a passenger compartment heater
16 (heater core) 16; and an exhaust heat recovery system 124. An exhaust pipe
17 22 defines an exhaust passageway in fluid communication with the engine
18 12. The exhaust heat recovery system 12 4 includes an exhaust heat recovery
19 device heat exchanger (exhaust gas heat exchanger) 28 for receipt of exhaust
20 gas flowing through the exhaust pipe 22. (See Prior, paras. 13, 14 & 23; &
21 Fig. 3). The exhaust gas heat exchanger 28 is configured to transfer heat
22 between the engine coolant and the exhaust system. (See, e.g., Prior, para.
23 26).
24 2. As depicted in Figures 3-5 of Prior, a passageway 5 0 is
25 connected to the engine 12 to define an outlet from the engine. A
4
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 passageway 48D is connected to the engine 12 to define a return to the
2 engme.
3 3. Prior also describes a transmission cooling system including a
4 transmission heat exchanger 41 and passages 64, 66 for conducting a flow of
5 coolant between the transmission 14 and the transmission heat exchanger 41.
6 (See Prior, para. 18 & Fig. 3). The transmission heat exchanger 41 is
7 configured to transfer heat between the engine coolant and the transmission
8 cooling system. (See, e.g., Prior, para. 28).
9 4. Prior's exhaust heat recovery system 124 defines three coolant
10 circuits. The first coolant circuit, depicted in Figure 3, connects the exhaust
11 gas heat exchanger 28, the engine 12 and the heater core 16, bypassing the
12 transmission heat exchanger 41, via passageways defined by conduits 42, 43,
13 48A-48D, 50, 52 and 144. (See Prior, para. 23). The second coolant circuit
14 is similar to the first, but bypasses both the transmission heat exchanger 41
15 and the exhaust gas heat exchanger 28. (See Prior, para. 24). As depicted in
16 Figures 3 and 4, the setting of a two-way valve 40 determines whether
17 coolant follows the first or second coolant circuit. (See Prior, paras. 23 &
18 24). A pump (primary pump) incorporated within the engine maintains
19 coolant flow through the first and second coolant circuits.
20 5. The third coolant circuit, depicted in Figure 5, connects the
21 exhaust gas heat exchanger 2 8 and the transmission heat exchanger 41 via
22 passageways defined by conduits 43,144,156, 158A and 158B. Another
23 pump ( auxiliary pump) 62 maintains coolant flow through the third coolant
24 circuit. (See Prior, para. 25).
25 6. Prior's exhaust heat recovery system 124 includes two-way
26 valves 40, 140A, 140B. Prior teaches that, by "controlling the valve 30,
5
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 valves 40, 140A, 140B, and pump 62, exhaust heat recovery is managed to
2 heat the engine 12, heater 16, or the transmission 14 as desired in response
3 to coolant temperatures sensed by sensors 33A and 33B." (Prior, para. 26).
4 For example, Figure 4 of Prior depicts the settings of the valves during a
5 "transmission warm-up mode" designed to simultaneously heat the engine
6 12 and the transmission 14 during portion of a cold start-up. As depicted in
7 Figure 4, the exhaust heat recovery system 124, while in the transmission
8 warm-up mode, connects the exhaust gas heat exchanger 28, the
9 transmission heat exchanger 41, the engine 12 and the heater core 16 in
10 series via passageways 42, 43, 48A-48D, 50, 52, 144, 156 and 157. (See
11 Prior, para. 27). Prior does not teach connecting the pump 62 in series with
12 the exhaust gas heat exchanger 28, the transmission heat exchanger 41, the
13 engine 12 and the heater core 16 in the transmission warm-up mode.
14
15 Pfeffinger
16 7. Pfeffinger describes a coolant circuit 1 for an internal
17 combustion engine 2a, 2b. (See Pfeffinger, col. 3, 11. 44--46 & Fig. 1 ). The
18 coolant circuit 1, as depicted in Figure 1, includes a water pump 10
19 positioned proximal to the return to the engine for pumping cooling water to
20 the engine block 2a. (See Pfeffinger, col. 3, 11. 53-56). Pfeffinger does not
21 describe the engine 2a, 2b as including a coolant pump.
22 8. Pfeffinger' s coolant circuit 1 also includes a heating circuit 12.
23 The heating circuit 12, as depicted in Figure 1, includes a loop that branches
24 off from an outlet from the engine 2a, 2b; connects an EGR cooler 13, a core
25 heater 14 and an additional water pump 15 in series; and empties into the
26 water pump 10. (See Pfeffinger, col. 3, 11. 57----67). Pfeffinger does not
6
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 describe the heating circuit 12 as being in fluid communication with the
2 transmission-oil/cooling water heat exchanger 9, which Figure 1 depicts in
3 series with the water pump 10.
4 9. Pfeffinger teaches that, during a cold start of the engine 1, the
5 additional water pump 15 may be energized, and an electrical mixing valve 5
6 closed, to permit coolant water circulation only through the heating circuit
7 12. (See Pfeffinger, col. 4, 11. 16-28). During this period, the coolant water
8 bypasses the transmission-oil/cooling water heat exchanger 9. (See
9 Pfeffinger, col. 4, 11. 28-34). Pfeffinger does not appear to describe any
10 other function performed by the additional water pump 15. (See, e.g.,
11 Pfeffinger, col. 6, 11. 1-22; col. 7, 11. 5-24; & col. 8, 11. 33-53).
12
13 Park
14 10. Park describes a hybrid electric vehicle including an internal
15 combustion engine 110 having a cooling system. (See Park, para. 53 & Fig.
16 2A). The cooling system includes an electric water pump 15 0 that circulates
17 coolant through a coolant line 151. (See Park, paras. 58 & 59). In addition,
18 the cooling system includes an electronic bypass valve 153. When the
19 engine 110 is in operation, the bypass valve 153 connects the water pump
20 15 0 to the return to the engine. (See Park, paras. 70-72).
21
22 Uzkan
23 11. Uzkan describes a layover system 89 for a locomotive diesel
24 engine 10 including the engine; a parallel aftercooler 12; a radiator 14 and an
25 oil cooler 16. (See Uzkan, para. 54). A layover system warms an engine
26 shut down at a cold ambient temperature to protect the engine from damage
7
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 and facilitate start-up. (See Uzkan, para. 9). Layover systems may be either
2 "dry radiator" systems, in which the radiator is drained when the engine is
3 shut down, or "wet radiator" systems, in which water or coolant remains in
4 the radiator after shut down. (See id.) Uzkan teaches that:
5 [I]n the wet radiator system, the heat loss through the radiators is
6 a major heat loss and can be as big as and even larger than the
7 heat loss at the engine. As this heat loss occurs without any
8 useful heating for the engine, any reduction in this heat loss is
9 desirable.
10 (Uzkan, para. 52).
11 12. Uzkan addresses the problem of heat loss through the radiator
12 by providing a variable restriction orifice 98 parallel to the oil cooler 16 on a
13 second end of the main radiator 14. The variable restriction orifice 98
14 dynamically adjusts the pressure at the second end of the main radiator 14 so
15 as to equalize the pressures P 1, P 2 at the first and second ends of the
16 radiator. In this manner, the variable restriction orifice 98 controls the flow
17 of coolant across the main radiator 15 in such a way as to minimize the flow,
18 thereby minimizing the heat loss through the radiator. (See Uzkan, paras. 56
19 & 57).
20 13. The embodiment depicted in Figure 7 ofUzkan includes a
21 coolant loop or circuit 22 and an after cooler loop or circuit 24. The coolant
22 circuit 22 includes a main or engine radiator 30 for cooling the engine 28.
23 (See Uzkan, paras. 44, 60 & 61). The after cooler circuit 24 includes an
24 aftercooler radiator 38 for cooling fluid in the after cooler circuit. (See
25 Uzkan, paras. 44, 46, 60 & 61). The Examiner has not shown that the
26 aftercooler radiator 38 performs the same function as the radiator 14
27 depicted in Figure 6, or a function similar to that of the radiator 14. As such,
28 Uzkan does not suggest that parallel fluid communication between a
8
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 transmission heat exchanger and a heater core is equivalent to, or
2 interchangeable with, serial fluid communication.
3
4 ANALYSIS
5 First Issue
6 Prior describes a powertrain including each limitation of claim 1,
7 except:
8 an engine coolant circuit defining a plurality of passageways that
9 connect the auxiliary pump, the engine, the heater core, the
10 transmission heat exchanger, and the exhaust heat exchanger in
11 series, with one of the passageways connected to the engine to
12 define an outlet from the engine and another one of the
13 passageways connected to the engine to define a return to the
14 engine; and wherein the auxiliary pump is positioned proximal
15 to the return to the engine or positioned adjacent to the heater
16 core.
17 (See FF 1-6). In particular, Prior describes a powertrain including an engine
18 coolant circuit defining a plurality of passageways that connect the engine
19 12, the heater core 2 6, the transmission heat exchanger 41 and the exhaust
20 heat exchanger 28 in series, with the passageway 50 connected to the engine
21 to define an outlet from the engine; and the passageway 48D connected to
22 the engine to define a return to the engine. (See FF 2 & 6). Prior does not
23 describe the remainder of the quoted limitation. (See Final Act. 6).
24 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to move
25 Prior' s pump 62 from the third coolant circuit into the first fluid circuit, into
26 a position proximal to the return 48D to the engine 12 or adjacent to the
27 heater core 16. (See Final Act. 6). In particular, the Examiner reasons that
28 "[ s ]uch a reconfiguration ... is simply a combination of prior art elements
29 (all of which are taught by Prior) according to known methods to yield
9
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 predictable results." (See Final Act. 6 & 7, citing MANUAL OF PATENT
2 EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2141 III). The Appellant correctly points out that
3 the proposed rearrangement would not have been obvious because Prior's
4 exhaust heat recovery system 124 relies on the pump 62 to maintain coolant
5 flow through the third coolant circuit. (See App. Br. 19; FF 5). Were the
6 pump 62 removed from the third coolant circuit and positioned proximal to
7 the return 48D to the engine 12 or adjacent to the heater core 16, the pump
8 would no longer be capable of performing its intended function. Therefore,
9 the proposed rearrangement would not have been obvious.
10 The Examiner cites Park and Pfeffinger as support for a finding that
11 one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to move Prior's pump
12 62 to a position proximal to the return to the engine. (See Final Act. 7).
13 Although both Pfeffinger and Park describe engine coolant systems having
14 pumps ( that is, the pump 10 in Pfeffinger' s system and the pump 15 0 in
15 Park's system) positioned proximal to the return of an internal combustion
16 engine (see FF 7 & 10), the Examiner rationale for rejecting claim 1
17 contemplates repositioning Prior' s pump 62 proximate the return of the
18 engine 12. (See Final Act. 6 & 7; Ans. 17 & 18). Neither teaches or
19 suggests a means for overcoming the problems likely to accompany removal
20 of Prior' s pump 62 from the third coolant circuit. Therefore, we do not
21 sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 17 under§ 103(a) as being
22 unpatentable over Prior, Pfeffinger and Park.
23 With regard to claims 6 and 10, the Examiner cites Gering as teaching
24 "a vehicle thermal management system that further comprises a heater core
25 bypass and associated control valve." (Final Act. 14, citing Gering, Abstract
26 and Fig. 2). With regard to claims 7 and 11, the Examiner cites Suzuki as
10
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 disclosing "a fluid system wherein a pump (72, Fig. 1) is provided with a
2 bypass (79), said bypass further comprising a one-way valve (79a) that
3 restricts flow through the pump bypass to one direction." (Final Act. 15).
4 Neither teaching remedies the deficiencies in the combined teachings of
5 Prior, Pfeffinger and Park as applied to independent claim 1. We do not
6 sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 10 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
7 over Prior and Gering; the rejection of claims 7 and 11 under§ 103(a) as
8 being unpatentable over Prior and Suzuki; or the rejection of claim 13 under
9 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prior, Gering and Suzuki.
10
11 Second Issue
12 The Examiner acknowledges that Prior does not describe a powertrain
13 including:
14 a plurality of variable restriction orifices configured to
15 control the fluid flow through respective portions of the engine
16 coolant circuit; and
17 wherein the plurality of variable restriction orifices
18 includes a first variable restriction orifice that is configured to
19 control fluid flow through the transmission heat exchanger and a
20 second variable restriction orifice that is configured to control
21 fluid flow through the heater core,
22 as recited in claim 4. Instead, the Examiner finds that "Uzkan discloses the
23 principle of controlling a flow rate through cooling system elements via
24 variable flow orifices." (Final Act. 12, citing Uzkan, Abstract; & Figs. 6 &
25 7). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to configure
26 the system of Prior with variable flow orifices to control flow rates as
27 desired (as taught by Uzkan), as such a configuration is simply an obvious
28 combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield
11
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 predictable results." (Final Act. 12, citing MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
2 PROCEDURE ("MPEP") § 2141 III).
3 The Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's findings regarding
4 the teachings of Prior and Uzkan, nor the Examiner's invocation of section
5 2141 III of the MPEP as a reason for combining the references. Instead, the
6 Appellant argues that, because Uzkan describes a cooling system including
7 only one variable restriction orifice, the teachings ofUzkan would not have
8 suggested the "plurality of variable restriction orifices" recited in claim 4.
9 (See App. Br. 31, 32 & 34; Reply Br. 8).
10 Prior describes the use of two-way valves, such as valves 40, 140A,
11 140B, to control the fluid flow through the respective portions of the engine
12 coolant circuit. (See FF 4 & 6). Uzkan teaches the use of a variable
13 restriction orifice to control the fluid flow through a section of a temperature
14 control circuit. (See FF 12). Given these teachings, the Examiner correctly
15 concludes that it would have been obvious to add variable restriction orifices
16 at multiple points in the coolant system, wherever flow control was desired.
17 The mere fact that Uzkan describes only one variable restriction orifice in a
18 locomotive layover system would not have discouraged one familiar with
19 the teachings ofUzkan from placing a variable restriction orifice wherever
20 flow control might have been desired. Therefore, the Appellant's argument
21 is not persuasive; and we sustain the rejection of independent claim 4, and of
22 dependent claim 16, under§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Prior and
23 Uzkan.
12
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 Third Issue
2 Claim 15 recites the "powertrain of claim 4, wherein the transmission
3 heat exchanger and the heater core are arranged in parallel fluid
4 communication." The Examiner finds that Prior fails to expressly teach
5 placing the transmission heat exchanger 41 and the heater core 16 in parallel
6 (see Final Act. 6 & 12; FF 6 & 7). Instead, the Examiner finds that:
7 Uzkan discloses an engine cooling system and teaches that such
8 a system can be configured such that heated engine coolant is
9 sent through a heater core ( radiator 14) and an oil heat exchanger
10 ( 16) in series ( as shown in Fig 1) or be configured such that
11 heated engine coolant is sent though a heater core (radiator 38)
12 and an oil heat exchanger (32) in parallel (as shown in Fig 2).
13 (Final Act. 12 & 13). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
14 obvious "to configure the elements of Prior as desired, as such a
15 configuration would simply [be] a combination of prior art elements
16 (elements already taught by Prior) according to known methods (arranging
17 such elements in series or parallel, as taught by Uzkan) ... to yield
18 predictable results." (Final Act. 13, citing MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
19 PROCEDURE ("MPEP") § 2141 III).
20 The Appellant correctly points out that, at the very least, modifying
21 Prior's coolant system to arrange the transmission heat exchanger and the
22 heater core in parallel would have changed the principle on which Prior' s
23 coolant system operates. (See App. Br. 33; Reply Br. 9). Uzkan does not
24 suggest that parallel fluid communication between a transmission heat
25 exchanger and a heater core is equivalent to, or interchangeable with, serial
26 fluid communication. (See FF 13). None of the three coolant circuits
27 described by Prior permits direct fluid communication between the heater
28 core 16 and the transmission heat exchanger 41, much less parallel fluid
13
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 communication. (See FF 4 & 5). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would
2 not have had reason to reconfigure Prior's exhaust heat recovery system 124
3 (or Prior's system 24) to provide parallel fluid communication between the
4 heater core 16 and the transmission heat exchanger 41. At least under these
5 limited circumstances, the mere possibility that Prior's system might have
6 been reconfigured to provide such fluid communication without yielding
7 unpredictable results does not imply that such a reconfiguration would have
8 been obvious. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 15 under§ 103(a) as
9 being unpatentable over Prior and Uzkan.
10
11 DECISION
12 We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4 and 16.
13 More specifically, we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 16 under§ 103(a)
14 as being unpatentable over Prior and Uzkan.
15 We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1-3, 5-13, 15
16 and 17. More specifically, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5,
17 8, 9, 12 and 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
18 Prior, Pfeffinger and Park; the rejection of claim 15 under§ 103(a) as being
19 unpatentable over Prior and Uzkan; the rejection of claims 6 and 10 under
20 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prior and Gering; the rejection of claims
21 7 and 11 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prior and Suzuki; and
22 the rejection of claim 13 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prior,
23 Gering and Suzuki.
14
Appeal2016-006850
Application 13/689,862
1 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
2 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
3 § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15