Ex Parte Fan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2014

11317768 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014)

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.
11/317,768 12/23/2005 Zhigang Fan 20051409USNP-XER1191US01 3105
62095 7590 09/12/2014
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3725
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2014 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 ZHIGANG FAN
________________

Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768
Technology Center 3700
________________

Before NEAL E. ABRAMS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER,
and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Zhigang Fan (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–
29. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION PURSUANT TO OUR AUTHOIRTY UNDER 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to counterfeit protection using
security marks. Claims 1, 2, 3, 24, 29 are illustrative of the claims on appeal
and are reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

2

1. A system that applies a security mark to a recipient,
comprising: a data reception component that receives
information from one or more sources; a memory component
which stores at least one of:
an algorithm, a formula, a method, a look up table, a
database, and a process that is at least one of:
stored, viewed, edited, organized, and retrieved for
use in generating a particular security mark configuration;
a security mark generation component that generates at
least one security mark configuration comprising:
at least two anchor marks which are 1 micron to 100
microns in diameter and provide reference points that allow
detection and extraction of the security mark configuration
regardless of the size, shift and/or rotation of the security
mark configuration; and
at least one data mark which is 1 micron to 100 microns
in diameter and which is different from the anchor marks in at
least one of: size, shape, and color;
and
an application component that applies the at least one
security mark configuration to one or more recipients.

2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the security
mark configuration includes:
at least three data marks located within a proximity of the
at least two anchor marks that is representative of the
information from the data reception component and placed in
any location relative to each other.

3. The system according to claim 1, wherein the anchor
marks and/or data marks include a color outline and/or fill.

24. A method for applying a security mark to a recipient, said
method comprising:
receiving information from at least one source into a data
reception component;
employing said information to develop at least one
security mark generation algorithm using machine learning by
an artificial intelligence component, wherein said machine
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

3

learning is achieved by employing at least one training set of
data having examples of at least one of desired and undesired
results for at least one of data format and processing techniques
that can be utilized to train the system;
generating at least one security mark configuration using
said at least one security mark generation algorithm from said
artificial intelligence component, wherein said at least one mark
is based at least in part upon the association between the
information received from the data component and the
information received from the memory component, the security
mark configuration includes:
at least two anchor marks between 1 and 100
microns in diameter and provide reference points that allow
detection and extraction of the security mark configuration
regardless of the size, shift and/or rotation of the security mark
configuration; and
at least one data mark between 1 and 100 microns
in diameter; and
applying the at least one security mark
configuration to one or more recipients.

29. A system that applies a security mark to a recipient,
comprising:
a data reception component that receives information
from one or more sources;
a memory component, separate from said data reception
component that stores at least one of an algorithm, a formula, a
method, a look up table, a database, and a process that is at least
one of stored, viewed, edited, organized, and retrieved for use
in generating a particular security mark configuration;
an artificial intelligence component that determines an
appropriate security mark generation algorithm for generating a
particular security mark configuration, said at least one security
mark generation algorithm determined by machine learning,
wherein said machine learning is achieved by employing at
least one training set of data having examples of at least one of
desired and undesired results for at least one of data format and
processing techniques that can be utilized to train the system;
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

4

a security mark generation component that generates at
least one security mark configuration that includes:
at least one data mark between 1 and 100 microns
in diameter; and
at least two anchor marks between 1 and 100
microns in diameter which provide reference points that allow
detection and extraction of the security mark configuration
regardless of the size, shift and/or rotation of the security mark
configuration, wherein said security mark is based upon the
association between the information from the data reception
component and the information received from the artificial
intelligence component; and
an application component that applies the at least one
security mark configuration to one or more recipients.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER

Hoppe U.S. 2004/0145674 A1 July 29, 2004
Antognini U.S. 6,820,807 B1 Nov. 23, 2004

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Antognini.
Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Antognini and Hoppe.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 as anticipated by
Antognini.
(I) Claim 1 recites, in part:
a security mark generation component that generates at
least one security mark configuration comprising:
at least two anchor marks which are 1 micron to 100
microns in diameter and provide reference points that allow
detection and extraction of the security mark configuration
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

5

regardless of the size, shift and/or rotation of the security mark
configuration; and
at least one data mark which is 1 micron to 100 microns
in diameter and
which is different from the anchor marks in at least one
of: size, shape, and color.

(II) The Examiner rejects claim 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 as
anticipated by Antognini stating:
The "MSM" includes four anchor marks (markers) 301
that provide reference points that allow detection of the "MSM"
(Abstract) and several data marks (inside cells) 303, 306, 307,
308, etc. located within a proximity of the four anchor marks
(Fig. 3); the several data marks are representative of
information from the reception component 201 (Col. 10, 44–64,
Fig. 2); the data marks are 3x3 pixels (identical) while the
anchor marks are 3x4 pixels (Col. 14, 40–52).
Ans. 4–5.
We note that the item inside the cells 303 is referred to as a
“spot” 301 in Antognini. See Antognini, col. 14, ll. 40–44 and Fig. 3.
The Examiner further asserts:
The data marks may be as small as 1x1 (explicitly disclosed as
1x2) and a 600 dpi printer is also explicitly disclosed (Col. 6,
33–53). In the case of these small marks and the 600 dpi
printer, the diameter of the marks will be 1/600 inch or 43.3
microns.
Final Action 3.

The Examiner also asserts:
The system and method taught in Antognini et al. is
capable of producing anchor marks and data marks within the
dimensions of 1 and 100 microns for at least two reasons. First,
the anchor and data marks of Figure 3 are only one
embodiment, the actual dimension of both marks may be
defined by user inputs (Fig. 2), thus the anchor marks may
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

6

be 1 x 2 and the data marks may be 1 x 1 (freely selectable
by the user). In this instance, the dimensions of both marks
would be 43.2 or 86.4 microns when using a 600 dpi printer
which is disclosed. Secondly, the actual result size of the
anchor marks and data marks are dependent on the "security
mark generation component" (a printer). Antognini et al.
discloses a wide variety of printers, and the invention is not
limited by any particular resolution. 1200 dpi printers are
known in the art and simply utilizing a higher resolution printer
(for motivations explicit in Antognini et al. who desires "dense"
data) would result in marks between 1 and 100 microns. The
first instance is directly anticipated by Antognini et al, the
second is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Ans. 7–8 (emphasis added); see also Antognini col. 6, ll. 41–53.

(III) Appellant traverses the Examiner’s anticipation rejection,
stating that when employing a 600 dpi printer:
Antognini discloses "data in cells 1/200 inch square (i.e., 0.005
inch x 0.005 inch)" [col. 3, lines 56–62] or approximately 127
microns in diameter and larger. This is greater than the range of
1–100 microns.
Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, Appellant disputes that Antognini teaches the
claimed size of 1–100 microns.
Appellant also addresses the adjustability described in Antognini and
discusses In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which was also
cited by the Examiner. Appellant asserts:
Different from Schreiber where nothing in the claim
suggests that Schreiber's container is of a 'different shape' than
Harz patent, the claimed anchor and data marks are not
pixelated. The anchor marks of the present application are
constructed differently from the markers of Antognini.
Reply Br. 4.
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

7

(IV) Regarding what size of marks the section of Antognini cited by the
Examiner discloses, we reproduce an expanded portion of column 6 below:
Of course, it is possible in principle that a given printer
(or a like device) may characteristically print smaller spots than
defined, or a given scanner (or a like device) may “leak” bright
intensities—in which case it would be useful to define spots to
be marginally larger than the cells they occupy (or,
alternatively, to print spots in reverse video.)
Between types of scanners or types of printers, such as
between a 360 dpi inkjet printer and a 600 dpi laser, the degree
of variation expands significantly. Laser printers have a greater
precision in the placement of ink, and 600 dpi printers place ink
more accurately than a 360 dpi printer. The invention provides
a method critical to optimization of ink placement based on
these variations.
The ability to vary the dimensions of spots and cells in
both horizontal and vertical directions also serves to maximize
the density of information. For example, with a 200 dpi thermal
fax printer, and a 400 dpi scanner, the invention can encode and
decode a pattern with cells of 1×2 pixels containing spots of
1×2 pixels, thus encoding over 100 kilobytes of data on a single
page. However, a 400 dpi scanner cannot reliably decode a
pattern with spots of 1×1 pixels printed at 200 dpi. Since the
next step up from 1×1 is 1×2 (or, equivalently, 2×1), the most
compact representation is employing the 1×2 cells. If the
technology could allow for only square cells, the next step up
would be 2×2 cells, which would be only half as compact.
Antognini, col. 6, ll. 27–53.
The portions of Antognini cited by the Examiner do not disclose
marks with diameters in the 1 micron to 100 micron range recited in
independent claim 1. Rather, when Antognini describes 600 dpi printers,
Antognini does so in the context of a cell 1/200th inch square (0.005 inch x
0.005 inch). Antognini, col. 3, ll. 57–62. Further, when Antognini specifies
the number of pixels, Antognini does so in the context of 200 dpi printers
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

8

and indicates at least 2 pixels are necessary. In either case, as pointed out by
Appellant above, the size of the mark is 127 microns, which is outside the
claimed 1 micron to 100 micron range.
Regarding whether the adjustability provided by Antognini correlates
to disclosure of the claimed 1 micron to 100 micron range, we agree with
Appellant. The fact that Antognini discloses that the size of the spot and
markers is adjustable does not mean that Antognini discloses the particular
size of marks recited in claim 1.1 The fact that Antognini may be capable of
being modified to operate the same way as the claimed system operates is
different from Antognini expressly or inherently disclosing this feature.
In light of the discussion above, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Antognini and claims 2–4, 6, 8–10, and 12 depending
therefrom as anticipated by Antognini. As both of independent claims 24
and 29 recite the above-noted feature relating to the size of the anchor and
data marks, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 24 and claims 27
and 28 depending therefrom as well as the rejection of independent claim 29.
The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 as obvious over
Antognini and Hoppe.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 as
obvious over Antognini and Hoppe and cites Antognini for the at least two
anchor marks (between 1 and 100 microns in diameter) and the at least one
data mark (between 1 and 100 microns in diameter) recited in each of
independent claims 1, 24, and 29.

1 A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

9

With regard to obviousness, Appellant specifically addresses the
recited 1 micron to 100 micron range in relation to Antognini in the Appeal
Brief, stating:
B. The Claims Are Not Obvious
Claim 1 calls for at least two anchor marks and at least
one data mark which is 1 micron to 100 microns in diameter.
The size of 1 micron to 100 micron makes the mark virtually
invisible to the naked eye. Not being visible to the naked eye
increases the security aspects of the mark, because undetected
security marks are not duplicated. The size also reduces the
footprint of the security mark. The mark can be added to a
document to provide for authenticity. The marks are not the
information or the art of the document but added as a security
feature to ensure the authenticity of the information or art of the
document. They are not intended to detract significantly from
the footprint such that the document must be formed around the
security mark. An object of Antognini is "to greatly increase the
density at which digital data can be represented on a substrate"
[col. 4 lines 17–19] with "the ultimate, practical goal: achieving
the maximum density possible for a particular combination of
printer and scanner." [col. 4 lines 30–32]. Antognini teaches
this is to be accomplished "using off-the-shelf personal
computers and peripherals, and achieves the full carrying
capacity [that] these off-the-shelf components can sustain."
[col. 4 line 24]. Antognini teaches that there are problems with
current printing densities. For example, the disclosure also
states that a 400 dpi scanner cannot reliably decode a pattern
with spots of 1 x1 pixels printed at 200 dpi which equals 127
microns. [col. 6 lines 47-49]. The solution is "the next step up
from 1 x1 is 1 x2" or to increase the size of the cell. [col. 6 lines
49-51]. Also "when spots completely fill in their cells, the cells
must be made larger to compensate for this tendency of
scanner." [col. 6 lines 18-20]. Antognini teaches increasing
sizes of cells and markers as solutions to problems. "Constraints
imply markers should be larger than spots." [col. 16 lines 17-
20]. Antognini does not teach any printer resolution, but a
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

10

resolution that must be matched with a scanner. Therefore any
teachings based solely on printer resolution are unfounded.
Appeal Br. 15.
The Appeal Brief further states:
Furthermore, Antognini teaches that greater information
density is not achieved through size reduction, but through
color. For example, "utilizing printing methods which store
more than one bit per cell, such as color printing, the theoretical
density limits increase substantially." [col 3. lines 49-51].
Antognini is not concerned with security markings and the
coexistence of security markings as part of a document, but
with digital encoding which forms the document. The
encodings in Antognini are not taught to be invisible to the
naked eye, but encoded to maximize the use of space.
Antognini is directed to using off-the-shelf components with
their limitations. Antognini teaches increasing sizes and the use
of color, and does not teach a range of 1–100 microns for either
cells or markers analogous to data marks and anchor marks of
claim 1. Hoppe does not teach or suggest marks.
Appeal Br. 15–16.
The Examiner asserts:
[T]he actual result size of the anchor marks and data marks are
dependent on the "security mark generation component" (a
printer). Antognini et al. discloses a wide variety of printers,
and the invention is not limited by any particular resolution.
1200 dpi printers are known in the art and simply utilizing a
higher resolution printer (for motivations explicit in Antognini
et al. who desires "dense" data) would result in marks between
1 and 100 microns.
Ans. 8.
Antognini discusses reasons for using more precise printing processes
as follows:
While Gormish discloses the ability to store 60 kilobytes
on a single page using a 400 dpi scanner, the invention is
capable of encoding and decoding over 160 kilobytes of data
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

11

error free (i.e., by utilizing error correction) using just a 300 dpi
scanner. With the aid of compression, this single page can
contain over 500 kilobytes of text. With a 600 dpi printer and a
600 dpi flatbed scanner, the invention can encode data in cells
{fraction (1/200)} inch square (i.e., 0.005 inch×0.005 inch),
successfully encoding and decoding over 300 kilobytes of data
before the benefit of any compression, in excess of 1 megabyte
of text with the aid of compression. Utilizing more precise
printing processes and a 600 dpi flatbed scanner, the invention
encodes and decodes over 7,000 bytes per square inch (over
1,100 bytes/cm2), over 20,000 bytes of text using compression.
Utilizing an ordinary thermal fax machine as a scanner
(achieving a binary scan of approximately 200 dpi), the
invention encodes and decodes over 50 kilobytes of data, over
150 kilobytes of text with the aid of compression. All of the
above densities are accomplished utilizing binary printing.
Antognini, col. 3, ll. 52–66 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, Antognini suggests using more precise printing
technology, and we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 8) that the use of
such technology would result in the recited 1 micron to 100 micron range for
the spots and markers disclosed by Antognini.
Appellant also asserts that the markers in Antognini do not correlate
to the recited anchor marks, explaining, with regard to claim 1
“[a]dditionally, the markers do not provide information about the security
mark, only horizontal and vertical location by displacement for a portion of
the security mark being decoded and not the security mark configuration.”
Appeal Br. 12. With regard to claim 24, Appellant states “Antognini also
alternatively discloses markers which allow detection and extraction of that
portion of the data cells located between markers of the data[f]ile, but not
the whole configuration.” Appeal Br. 13. With regard to claim 29,
Appellant states “Additionally, the markers do not provide information
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

12

about the security mark, only horizontal and vertical location by
displacement for a portion of the security mark being decoded and not the
security mark configuration.” Appeal Br. 14.
The Examiner states “[t]he "MSM" includes four anchor marks
(markers) 301 that provide reference points that allow detection of the
"MSM" (Abstract) and several data marks (inside cells) 303, 306,
307, 308, etc. located within a proximity of the four anchor marks (Fig. 3).”
Ans. 4‒5.
We note that Antognini provides markers 301 for the purpose of
detecting the “spots” on the substrate. Antognini, col. 14, ll 40‒45.
Antognini states “there are guideposts, which the present invention terms
“markers,” that serve to identify the location of spots on the printed
substrate—a function known in the art as “clocking.” Antognini, col. 5, ll.
2‒5. Appellant has not explained how the recited anchor marks, which
“allow detection and extraction of the security mark configuration regardless
of the size, shift and/or rotation of the security mark configuration” as
claimed are different from the markers “guideposts” disclosed in Antognini
that identify the location of spots on the printed substrate. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that Antognini discloses this feature, and we affirm
the rejection of independent claims 1, 24, and 29.
Claim 2
Appellant separately argues claim 2 as follows:
Claim 2 calls for at least three data marks within a
proximity of the at least two anchor marks that is representative
of the information from the data reception component and
placed in any location relative to each other. Antognini teaches
data cells occur only in a pattern and not in any location
relative to each other. "In the preferred embodiment, cells and
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

13

spots are rectangular or essentially rectangular with the cells
placed in horizontal rows and vertical columns in the datatile.
In another embodiment, cells are formatted as diagonal spaces
and series of cells are formatted diagonally into the datatile."
[col. 17 lines 20-24]. Antognini discloses where the user can
define the displacement in a pattern. "Once the lower border has
been reached [of the pattern], the sequence goes back to the first
cell of the next line." [col. 18 lines 46–48]. A pattern or
sequence does not teach or suggest any location relative to
each other. Antognini is concerned with density and thus
regular patterns are important to achieve the expected
density. This is also reflected in "[t]he principle that must guide
the dimensions and periodicity of the markers is that they must
be laid down by the printing process so that they rarely are
absent, are clearly identifiable in the scan, and have absolutely
reliable physical location." [col. 15 lines 62-66]. Hoppe does
not teach marks.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
The Examiner refers to figure 3 as well as column 10 of Antognini for
the above-noted feature. Ans. 5. Figure 3 depicts an arrangement of cells,
spots, and marks, and the portion of column 10 cited by the Examiner
describes the size of spots in relation to the size of cells. These portions of
Antognini, however, do not disclose the proximity of the at least two anchor
marks “that is representative of the information from the data reception
component” recited in claim 2. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 as
obvious over Antognini and Hoppe is reversed.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection
against claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, which
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

14

recites, in part “[a] system that applies a security mark to a recipient,
comprising: a data reception component that receives information from one
or more sources.” Claim 2 recites [t]he system according to claim 1,
wherein the security mark configuration includes: at least three data marks
located within a proximity of the at least two anchor marks that is
representative of the information from the data reception component
and placed in any location relative to each other.” (Emphasis added). It is
unclear what data is from the data reception component because, prior to the
above-noted portion of claim 2, the data reception component is recited only
as receiving information, not sending information.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “[t]he system according to claim 1, wherein
the anchor marks and/or data marks include a color outline and/or fill.”
The Examiner asserts “[i]n respect to claims 3 and 27, Antognini et al.
further disclose that the data marks may include various color outlines and
fills (Col. 34, 48 – Col. 35, 39; Fig. 14).” Ans. 5.
Appellant asserts:
Antognini discloses cells as color and surrounded by a border,
but does not disclose markers or landmarks as anything other
than solid black, and does not disclose landmarks or markers
with outlines. The difference is that the cells or data marks
permit encoding of multiple bits with color. [col. 35 lines 28-
32]. Antognini teaches independence between markers and cells
and encoding the markers or landmarks in color or with outlines
contributes no information. Antognini states "the present
invention explicitly decouples these two features, [cells and
markers,] so that each may be optimally configured for its
distinct purpose." [col. 5 lines 5–8].
Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

15

We see no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Claim 3
recites that anchor marks and/or data marks include a color outline and/or
fill. The Examiner has pointed to a portion of Antognini describing that the
data marks, “spots,” have different colors, i.e., different color fills.
Antognini states:
The recovery process has further embodiments reflecting the
different embodiments of the method of encoding. Where the
method of encoding places multiple bits in each cell through the
use of multiple colors (such as varying levels of gray), the
recovery process preferably determines the centers of cells (i.e.,
the centers of possible spots) in a fashion described above but
then determines not merely the presence of a spot at the cell's
center but also the color of any spot present.
Antognini, col. 34, ll. 48–56.
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s assertion regarding
the markers or landmarks is correct, Antognini discloses datamarks as
recited by claim 3.
DECISION
Although we have carefully considered all of Appellant’s arguments,
we are not persuaded that the positions taken by the Examiner with respect
to the obviousness of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29 are in error.
This being the case, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12,
24, and 27–29 as obvious over Antognini and Hoppe is affirmed. We also
enter a new ground of rejection against claim 2.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, and 27–29
under as anticipated by Antognini and the rejection of claim 2 as obvious
over Antognini and Hoppe are reversed.
Regarding the new ground of rejection, Appellant must, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, exercise one of the
Appeal 2012-008379
Application 11/317,768

16

following options with respect to the new ground of rejection, in order 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
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . .; or
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under §
41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

Klh