Hyung Joon. Kim

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2019

14083423 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2019)

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.
14/083,423 11/18/2013 Hyung Joon Kim TI-72976 8105
23494 7590 08/09/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2019 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HYUNG JOON KIM
________________

Appeal 2018-0072681
Application 14/083,423
Technology Center 2400
_________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–3 and 11, all of the pending claims. App. Br. 2.
Claims 4–10 and 12–20 are cancelled. Id. at 15–16 (Claims App’x). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
August 1, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 16, 2018); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 30, 2016); the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 16, 2018); and the originally
filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed November 18, 2013). Rather than repeat
the Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in
their entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 Appellant asserts Texas Instruments Inc. is the real party-in-interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s recited methods and computer readable media comprising
instructions for performing such methods “generally relate [to] video coding
and more specifically relate to adaptive coding unit (CU) partitioning based
on image statistics.” Spec. ¶ 2. In particular,
in [High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)], a largest coding unit
(LCU) is the base unit used for block-based coding. A picture is
divided into non-overlapping LCUs. That is, an LCU plays a
similar role in coding as the macroblock of H.264/AVC, but it
may be larger, e.g., 32x32, 64x64, etc. An LCU may be
partitioned into coding units (CU) using recursive quadtree
partitioning. A CU is a block of pixels within an LCU and the
CUs within an LCU may be of different sizes. The quadtree is
split according to various criteria until a leaf is reached, which is
referred to as the coding node or coding unit. The maximum
hierarchical depth of the quadtree is determined by the size of the
smallest CU (SCU) permitted.
Id. ¶ 20; see id. ¶ 19 (listing various versions of HEVC); see also Sjoberg
¶ 48 (splitting the LCU in “quadtree fashion”).
As noted above, claims 1–3 and 11 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are
independent. App. Br. 15–16 (Claims App’x). Claims 2 and 3 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1. Id. As noted above, claim 11 recites
computer-readable media “comprising instructions that, when executed by at
least one processor, cause the at least one processor to” perform methods of
computing at least one statistical measure and selecting one of the LCU or
CUs to form an LCU partitioning based on the statistical measure, including
the methods recited in claim 1. Id. at 16. Therefore, we focus our analysis
on the overlapping limitations of these independent claims. See Accenture
Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (“Although CLS Bank issued as a plurality opinion, in that case a
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

3

majority of the court held that system claims that closely track method
claims and are grounded by the same meaningful limitations will generally
rise and fall together.” (citation omitted)).
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized, is
representative.
1. A method for determining coding unit (CU) partitioning of a
largest coding unit (LCU) of a picture, the method comprising:
computing, with one or more processors, a first statistical
measure and a second statistical measure for the LCU based on
pixel values of the LCU and without using residual pixel values
of the LCU;
selecting, with the one or more processors, the LCU as the CU
partitioning when the first statistical measure does not exceed a
first threshold and the second statistical measure does not exceed
a second threshold; and
selecting, with the one or more processors, CUs in one or more
lower layers of a CU hierarchy of the LCU to form the CU
partitioning when the first statistical measure exceeds the first
threshold and/or the second statistical measure exceeds the
second threshold.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Number Publ’d Filed
Porter US 2005/0128306 A1 Jun. 16, 2005 Dec. 10, 2004
Imamura US 2008/0253454 A1 Oct. 16, 2008 Apr. 11, 2008
Sjoberg US 2013/0003868 A1 Jan. 3, 2013 Nov. 9, 2011
Hebel US 2014/0086314 A1 Mar. 27, 2014 Sep. 26, 2012

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1–3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel. Final Act. 5–9.
The Examiner also rejected claims 6–8, 12, 13, 17–20 as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel; claims 4, 9, and
14 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Sjoberg, Hebel, and
Porter, and claims 5, 10, and 15 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Sjoberg, Hebel, Porter, and Imamura. Id. at 8–11. Further, the
Examiner asserted claims 6–10 included means-plus-function limitations per
35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Id. at 4–5. Because Appellant cancelled claims 4–10,
12–15, and 17–204 in an Amendment filed with the Appeal Brief, these
additional rejections and the means-plus-function interpretations applied to
claims 6–10 now are moot. App. Br. 2.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action
and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for
emphasis. We address the rejection below.

4 Although the Examiner refers to claim 16 in the Final Office Action,
Appellant cancelled claim 16 in an Amendment filed on November 18,
2016. Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

5

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Over Sjoberg and Hebel
1. Independent Claims 1 and 11
Claims 1 and 11 stands rejected as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel. Final Act. 5–8, 9. The Examiner
determines that Sjoberg teaches the steps of
computing, with one or more processors, a first statistical
measure . . . for the LCU based on pixel values of the LCU and
without using residual pixel values of the LCU;
selecting, with the one or more processors, the LCU as the
CU partitioning when the first statistical measure does not
exceed a first threshold . . . and
selecting, with the one or more processors, CUs in one or
more lower layers of a CU hierarchy of the LCU to form the CU
partitioning when the first statistical measure exceeds the first
threshold and/or the second statistical measure exceeds the
second threshold,5
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6–7 (emphasis added) (citing Sjoberg ¶¶ 5, 51);
see id. at 9 (discussing claim 11). In particular, with regard to the selection
of CU sizes Sjoberg teaches,
This decision whether to split a coding unit is based on the
coding process. For instance, a picture area that represents a
fairly homogenous background is more efficiently represented
using large CU sizes, such as LCUs, as compared to splitting the

5 Because the final limitation in claim 1 describes using a comparison of the
first statistical measure to the first threshold “and/or” a comparison of the
second statistical measure to the second threshold, we understand that only
the first comparison is necessary to satisfy this limitation. App. Br. 15
(Claims App’x); see, e.g., Ex parte Gross, Appl’n No. 11/565,411, Appeal
No. 2011-004811, at 4 (PTAB Jan. 3, 2014) (“We agree with Appellant that
‘and/or’ covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or
elements A and B taken together.”)
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

6

picture area into smaller coding units. However, picture areas
with small details or a lot of such details can generally not be
correctly represented if using large coding units. In such a case,
it is more efficient and preferred from coding quality point of
view to use several smaller CUs for the picture area. The
selection of whether to further split a CU can thereby [be]
performed according to techniques described in the art and
preferably based on the coding efficiency and quality.
Sjoberg ¶ 51(emphasis added); see id. ¶ 48 (describing quadtree hierarchical
splitting). In view of Sjoberg’s teachings, the Examiner asserts
splitting the LCU depending upon the homogeneous or detailed
nature of the pixels of the LCU (i.e.[,] which is understood to use
values of pixels and not necessarily using residual pixel values).
The mention of the coding efficiency and quality in Sjoberg is
interpreted to be in the context of such homogeneous
characteristic[s] of the LCU. That is for example, it would be
more efficient to use LCU as the CU when the LCU is a
homogeneous background, as disclosed by Sjoberg.
Final Act. 2–3 (emphasis added).
The Examiner acknowledges that Sjoberg does not teach, “computing
. . . a second statistical measure for the LCU” and “selecting the LCU . . .
when the second statistical measure does not exceed a second
threshold.” Id. at 7. Nevertheless, the Examiner determines that Hebel
teaches these limitations. Id. (citing Hebel ¶¶ 30, 44). In particular, the
Specification explains, “[i]n some embodiments, the two statistical measures
are the variance of the CU and the gradient of the CU.” Spec. ¶ 23; see id.,
claim 4 (Claim 4 (now cancelled) depends from claim 1 and recites “the first
statistical measure is variance and the second statistical measure is
gradient.”). Hebel teaches “[c]haracteristics of a coding unit considered in
this determination may include, but are not limited to, texture, brightness,
motion, variance, or any combination thereof.” Hebel ¶ 44 (emphases
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

7

added). Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
the concepts of variance and gradient to be closely related. See Spec. ¶¶ 50
(determination of “variance”); 51 (determination of “gradient”); 64 (“One of
ordinary skill in the art will understand embodiments in which an alternative
statistical measurement is used. For example, the previously described
variance computation includes multiplication, which will require more logic
gates in a hardware implementation. Instead of computing variance, the
simple sum of absolute differences between pixel values and the average
pixel value may be computed. This latter statistic computation can be
implemented with fewer logic gates than the full variance computation.”
(emphasis added)); Porter ¶ 333 (“Note that the variance measure used can
either be traditional variance or the sum of differences of neighbouring
pixels (gradient) or any other variance-type measure.” (emphases added));
see also Final Act. 3 (“The use of the particular measure such as gradient is
disclosed by the combined teaching of Sjoberg-Porter or Sjoberg-Hebel-
Porter.”).
Although the Examiner only relied upon Porter in the rejection of
now-cancelled claim 4, claim 4 remains part of the Specification, and Porter
remains part of the record of this appeal. We determine that claim 4’s
disclosure and Porter’s teachings are relevant to a person of ordinary skill’s
understanding of the meaning of gradient and variance and, consequently, to
the breadth of the term “statistical measure.” See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“In construing this limitation, we apply the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those
words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account any definitions supplied by [Appellant’s] Specification.”); Okajima
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

8

v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of
specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to
reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a
need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
The Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Sjoberg, regarding
“computing” of a first statistical measure based on the homogeneity or detail
of an image and “selecting” a CU based on that measure, with the teachings
of Hebel, regarding the “computing” a second statistical measure based on
characteristics, such as “variance,” to achieve the methods recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 7–8. In particular, the Examiner concludes a person of ordinary
skill in the art
would be motivated [to combine the teachings of these
references] as considering multiple measures to characterize an
image area, as taught by Hebel, would more accurately reflect
whether the image area is homogeneous or with small details
when selecting the size of the coding units, which would result
in the overall increase in the coding efficiency.
Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel for at least three reasons. App. Br. 5–11.
For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
First, Appellant contends that Sjoberg’s disclosure of determining
CUs based on whether the image is homogeneous or detailed (Sjoberg ¶ 51)
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

9

does not teach “computing” a statistical measure (see App. Br. 5–7; Reply
Br. 3–4). In particular,
Appellant submits that the Examiner erred because paragraph
[0005] of Sjoberg et al. is merely giving a general observations
about how different CU sizes may be used to handle both large
and small homogenous areas. Similarly, paragraph [0051] of
Sjoberg et al. is merely directed to a general observation about
which types of pictures may benefit from using large CU sizes
vs. small CU sizes. There is no indication that the homogeneity
or detailed-naturedness of pictures is used in Sjoberg et al. to split
an LCU.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner asserts that
The teaching of the disclosure of Sjoberg should be ascertained
or understood in view of the level of the ordinary skilled in the
art. Thus, given that Sjoberg discloses ([¶ 51]) use of large
coding units for homogeneous picture and smaller coding units
for detailed pictures for efficiency in coding, Sjoberg teaches that
the splitting of the coding units into smaller ones should be based
upon whether the picture is homogeneous or detailed. In fact,
Sjoberg [¶ 51] expressly discloses splitting the coding unit to
realize a smaller coding unit.
Ans. 15–16; see Final Act. 2–3. Splitting the LCU into smaller CUs may be
accomplished by the quadtree technique taught by Sjoberg (Sjoberg ¶ 48;
Figs. 3A, 3B) and disclosed in the Specification (Spec., Figs. 2, 6).
As the Specification and cancelled claim 4 make clear, variance and
gradient may be statistical measures. Spec. ¶ 23, 50–53, 55, 64–66, claim 4.
As Hebel and Porter teach CUs may be determined based on variance (Hebel
¶ 44), and variance and gradient, i.e., “the sum of differences of
neighbouring pixels” (Porter ¶ 333), are both “variance-type measure[s]”
(id.). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a
homogeneous image is one in which the differences between neighbouring
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

10

pixels are necessarily small, e.g., lower variance or a shallow gradient, but
an image having detail or small detail necessarily exhibits larger differences
between neighbouring pixels, e.g., higher variance or a steep gradient. See
Porter ¶¶ 325–332 (describing comparison of skin color variance to a
threshold value), 376–384 (describing Figs. 29a–29c and “a gradient-based
measure [] derived from the window . . . which is the average of the absolute
differences between all adjacent pixels 1011 in both the horizontal and
vertical directions, taken over the window”); see also RANDOM HOUSE
WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 629 (2nd Random House ed. 1999)
(“homogeneous” defined as “composed of parts or elements that are all of
the same kind; not heterogeneous” and “of the same kind or nature;
essentially alike”). Thus, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in
the art, having knowledge evidenced by Porter’s teachings, would
understand that determining a CU based on image area homogeneity or
detail, as taught by Sjoberg, in light of known CU characteristics, including
variance, as taught by Hebel, encompasses the recited “statistical
measure[s].”
Second, Appellant contends “Hebel . . . is not concerned with LCU
partitioning, and therefore fails to overcome the deficiencies already
discussed above with respect to Sjoberg . . . .” App. Br. 6, 9. Nevertheless,
the Examiner relies on Hebel to teach the computation of a second statistical
measure and the selection of a CU based on the comparison of the second
statistical measure to a second threshold. Final Act. 7. As noted above,
Hebel teaches the use of known CU characteristics, “includ[ing], but are not
limited to, texture, brightness, motion, variance, or any combination
thereof,” to select a CU. Hebel ¶ 44 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

11

does not rely on Hebel to supply what is taught by Sjoberg. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant improperly challenges the references individually, rather than the
combination of the references’ teachings, upon which the Examiner relies.
Third, Appellant contends that “[t]o the extent that efficiency and
quality are statistical measures to categorize an image as having a
homogenous background (which Appellant does not concede), such
measures as already discussed above, are determined using residual pixels
values of a CU,” which is contrary to the recitation of claims 1 and 11 that
the CU is determined “without using residual pixel values of the LCU.”
App. Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner asserts, “Appellant does not
state specific reason why the appellant believes that Sjoberg . . . is ‘using
residual pixels values of a CU.’” Ans. 15. In response,
Applicant notes that Sjoberg . . . describes determining whether
to further split a CU based on coding efficiency and quality.
Coding efficiency and quality are determined using residual
pixels values of a CU. In other words, to determine the efficiency
and quality of the coding, the video in Sjoberg . . . is encoded.
This involves generating and using residuals. Hence, by
disclosing that CUs are further split based on coding efficiency
and quality, Sjoberg . . . is disclosing using residual pixel values,
even though the reference does not explicitly use the term.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added); see App. Br. 6–7. Thus, because Sjoberg
determines the efficiency and quality of the coding, Appellant concludes that
Sjoberg must code all pixels, including residual pixels. Appellant contends
that “[a]t the very least, the Examiner erred by failing to establish a prima
facie case of inherency that Sjoberg . . . necessarily does not use residual
pixel values.” Reply Br. 2 (italics added).
Nevertheless, “a reference need not state a feature’s absence in order
to disclose a negative limitation.” AC Techs. S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 912
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

12

F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb
Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1004–05 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming finding
that reference disclosed “uncoated” film where it did not describe the film as
coated and did not suggest necessity of coatings)). Thus, we read Sjoberg’s
disclosure broadly; and we determine Sjoberg does not state that it does or
does not use residual pixels, Appellant provides insufficient evidence to
demonstrate that Sjoberg only describes coding using residual pixels, and the
Examiner was not required to show the Sjoberg affirmatively teaches that
residual pixel are not used for coding in order to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness.
Although the disputed limitations of claim 11 and claim 1 differ
somewhat in scope, they are substantially similar, and Appellant relies on
substantially the same arguments to challenge the rejection of both claims.
Compare App. Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 2–8 with App. Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 9.
Consequently, on this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in determining that the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel render
independent claims 1 and 11 obvious, and we sustain that rejection.
2. Dependent Claims 2 and 3
Claim 2 recites “selecting the parent CU as a partition of the CU
partitioning when the first statistical measure of the parent CU does not
exceed a third threshold and the second statistical measure of the parent CU
does not exceed a fourth threshold.” App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x) (emphases
added). Thus, this claim recites hierarchical coding to lower layers. See
Spec. ¶ 55, Fig. 6. Sjoberg teaches that “[t]he LCUs . . . may be split into
smaller coding units (CUs), which in turn may be split hierarchically in a
quadtree fashion down to a smallest coding unit (SCU)” Sjoberg ¶ 5; see id.
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

13

¶ 48 (“As is well known in the art, a quadtree is a tree data structure in which
each internal node has exactly four children.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the
Examiner determines that Sjoberg teaches or suggests this limitation. Final
Act. 8.
Appellant contends that
no mention is made in the applied references individually or in
the Examiner’s proposed combination of references of four
different thresholds – two of which are used to select whether to
use the LCU as the CU partitioning and two more of which are
used to select a parent CU as a partition for one or more lower
layers.
App. Br. 12. Further, Appellant contends, because Sjoberg does not teach
computing even a first statistical measure based on the homogeneity or detail
of the image area, Sjoberg and Hebel cannot teach second, third, or fourth
statistical measures. Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner asserts, however, Sjoberg and Hebel teach splitting the
image into a plurality of CUs in a quadtree fashion based on the coding
process. Ans. 17 (citing Sjoberg ¶ 51). Moreover, referring to Sjoberg’s
Figures 3A and 3B, Sjoberg teaches at least three hierarchical layers
comprising quadtrees, including four CUs 20, up to sixteen CUs 30, and up
to sixty-four CUs 40, respectively. See Sjoberg ¶ 80. From these teachings,
the Examiner concludes that Sjoberg teaches up to six statistical measures
over at least three hierarchical layers, two per hierarchical layer. Ans. 17.
Because, for the reasons given above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred with respect to the application of the combined teachings of
Sjoberg and Hebel to independent claim 1 and because both Sjoberg and
Hebel teach coding at a plurality of layers (see Sjoberg ¶¶ 5, 48; Hebel ¶ 14),
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

14

we are persuaded the Examiner has shown that claim 2 is rendered obvious
by the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and recites “selecting child CUs of the
parent CU in at least one lower layer of the CU hierarchy as part of the CU
partitioning when the first statistical measure of the parent CU exceeds the
third threshold and/or the second statistical measure of the parent CU
exceeds the fourth threshold.” Id. at 16 (emphases added). This limitation is
similar to the second “selecting” limitation of claim 1, discussed above. The
Examiner relies on substantially the same teachings of Sjoberg applied to
claim 2, to demonstrate that claim 3 is taught by the combined teachings of
Sjoberg and Hebel. Final Act. 8. Appellant relies on the contentions
presented with respect to claims 1 and 2 to challenge the rejection of claim
3. App. Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 7–8. For the reasons given above, we are not
persuaded by these contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3
over the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel.
Thus, on this record, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 3 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Sjoberg
and Hebel.
CONCLUSION
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3 and 11 as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Sjoberg and Hebel.
(2) Thus, claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 11.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
Appeal 2018-007268
Application 14/083,423

15

this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED