Markus Kostrzewa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2020004782 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 12/695,235 01/28/2010 Markus Kostrzewa P3534US00 7545 110047 7590 03/01/2022 BENOIT & COTE 560 boul. Cremazie est Suite 300 Montreal, QUEBEC H2P 1E8 CANADA EXAMINER SKIBINSKY, ANNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): docket@benoit-cote.com phil@benoit-cote.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARKUS KOSTRZEWA, THOMAS MAIER, and STEFAN KLEPEL Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 Technology Center 1600 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected 1-14 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as lacking patent-eligibility. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Bruker Daltonik GmbH. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 2. There are two independent claims on appeal, claims 1 and 11. Claim is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for identifying microorganisms present in a complex sample using a MALDI (matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization) time-of-flight mass spectrometer, comprising: (a) preparing a MALDI sample from the complex sample, wherein some of the molecular cell components of the microorganisms, particularly soluble proteins, are released by the destruction of the microorganisms and are incorporated as analytes into a MALDI matrix; (b) introducing the MALDI sample into an ion source of the time-of-flight mass spectrometer and bombarding the MALDI sample with laser light pulses causing the analytes to be desorbed and ionized; (c) acquiring a sample mass spectrum by separating the ionized analytes temporally in the time-of-flight mass spectrometer and detecting them in an ion detector; (d) comparing the sample mass spectrum to each of a plurality of reference mass spectra, wherein each reference mass spectrum is a mass spectrum of a known microorganism; (e) selecting as a best set of reference mass spectra, those reference mass spectra that are found to most closely match the sample spectrum in the comparisons in step (b); (f) combining a plurality of the reference mass spectra of microorganisms of different species in said best set to form a combination spectrum, wherein mass signals from different reference mass spectra that correspond to the same mass are combined to form one signal in the combination spectrum; and (g) comparing the sample mass spectrum to the combination spectrum. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 3 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” However, not every discovery is eligible for patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “Excluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Id. The Supreme Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether a claim falls within an excluded category of invention. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012). In the first step, it is determined “whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If it is determined that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, then the second step of the two-part analysis is applied in which it is asked “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court explained that this step involves a search for an “‘inventive concept’”-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (alteration in original) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). Alice, relying on the analysis in Mayo of a claim directed to a law of nature, stated that in the second part of the analysis, “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” must be considered “to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 4 nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted). The PTO published guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (2019) (“Eligibility Guidance”). This guidance provides additional direction on how to implement the two-part analysis of Mayo and Alice. In the first step of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim falls within a statutory category of invention. In the subsequent step, identified as Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, we look at the specific limitations in the claim to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception to patent eligibility. In Step 2A, Prong Two, we examine the claims to identify whether there are additional elements in the claims that integrate the exception in a practical application, namely, is there a “meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Prong Two). If the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, then as in the Mayo/Alice framework, Step 2B of the 2019 Eligibility Guidance instructs us to determine whether there is a claimed “inventive concept” to ensure that the claims define an invention that is significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56. With these guiding principles in mind, we proceed to determine whether the claimed subject matter in this appeal is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 5 ANALYSIS In the first part of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims fall within a statutory category of invention. The claims in this appeal are directed to a method. A method is also a “process,” one of the broad statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the claim falls into one of the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance. Step 2A, Prong One In Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, the specific limitations in the claim are examined to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception to patent eligibility, namely, whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Each limitation in the claim must be searched to determine whether it recites a judicial exception. Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Examiner found that steps (a)-(c) of claim 1 “describe the routine procedure of preparing a sample and performing a MALDI measurement which results in a mass spectra of ionized particle signals.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner found that the remaining steps of the claim comprise “combining data and comparing data which are forms of abstract ideas because said method steps can be performed as a mental process or with the aid or paper/pen.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner’s findings are consistent with the plain language of the claim. Steps (a), (b), and (c) of claim 1 prepare a MALDI sample from a complex sample, introduce the sample into a time-of-flight mass spectrometer for analysis, and then acquire the spectrum of the sample. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 6 These steps of the claim are not abstract, but instead gather the mass spectrum data that is used in subsequent steps (d) to (g) of the claim. The Examiner found that steps (d) to (g) of the claim, following the gathering of the sample’s mass spectrum, are mental processes because they can be done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Ans. 3-4. Mental processes are a grouping of abstract ideas and ineligible for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. We agree with the Examiner’s finding. A mass spectrum of the complex sample is shown in the Specification as a graph of peaks and valleys representing the masses of various ion fragments detected by the time-of-flight spectrometer. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 2 38; Fig. 3. Step (d) of comparing the sample mass spectrum to a reference mass spectrum of a known organism could be accomplished in the human mind by the observer making a mental comparison between the peaks and valleys of the sample mass spectrum to the reference mass spectrum. Similarly, one of ordinary skill in the art could accomplish step (e) of the claim in the human mind by making mental comparisons to select the reference mass spectra which “most closely match the sample spectrum” obtained in step (b). Indeed, dependent claim 6 describes performing step (e) “manually,” indicating that this step can be accomplished in the human mind by one of ordinary skill in the art. A plurality of the reference mass spectra of microorganisms of different species selected in step (e) are combined in step (f). We agree with 2 “A mass spectrum as defined in this invention may have the form of a so- called peak list, which contains only the masses and intensities of the signals present in a mass spectrum, or of a spectral fingerprint known from the prior art, which is determined from repeat spectra and which may have a reduced number of signals specific to the respective microorganism.” Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 7 the Examiner that this step could also be performed in the human mind, using pen and paper, e.g., manually combining the reference mass spectra by writing down the collection of all the peaks and valleys of the reference mass spectra identified in step (e). The combination spectrum produced in step (f) of the claim is compared in step (g) to the sample mass spectrum. As for step (d) of the claim, a comparison between mass spectra can be accomplished in the human mind by visually comparing the peaks and valleys. The claim does not describe what is done with information derived from the comparison once it is completed. In sum, each of steps (d) to (g) of claim 1 recite an abstract idea. Appellant did not provide evidence to rebut this finding. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites judicial exceptions to patent eligibility, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two of Step 2A under the Eligibility Guidance asks whether there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. We must look at the claim elements individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. As explained in the Eligibility Guidance, integration may be found when an additional element “reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” or “applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 8 such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The update to the Eligibility Guidance (“PEG Update”)3 further explains that “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” PEG Update 12. The Specification states in its “Background” section that “[i]n practice, a simple and low-cost method for the mass spectrometric identification of microorganisms based on MALDI (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization) time-of-flight mass spectra has gained wide-spread acceptance by microbiologists.” Spec. ¶ 5. The Specification explains that “to identify microorganisms, a mass spectrum of the sample is acquired and compared with mass spectra of known microorganisms, which are available as reference spectra in a library.” Spec. ¶ 6. However, the Specification further explains that there “are indications that the error rates (false positive, and also false negative) increase greatly if complex samples contain more than three different microorganisms.” Spec. ¶ 11. As a consequence, the Specification identifies “a great need to identify complex samples with certainty in order to avoid a time-consuming second cultivation when a mixed culture is suspected.” Spec. ¶ 12. Based on this disclosure, Appellant states that “the specification very clearly lays out the narrow problem that 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p df (last accessed Feb. 14, 2022) (“PEG Update”). Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 9 the invention is directed to, namely, the prevalence of false positives/negatives in the identification of complex samples of microorganisms using MALDI mass spectrometric analysis.” Appeal Br. 6. The Specification describes its approach to this problem as an “identification method” which “comprises combining at least two reference spectra to form a combination spectrum and extending a similarity analysis to the combination spectrum.” Spec. ¶ 13. The Specification states that the method “significantly reduces the analysis time for a sample containing a mixture of microorganisms” and that samples “obtained directly from bodily fluids can be reliably identified, for example, even when the presence of a mixture of two or three microbes cannot be excluded.” Spec. ¶ 15. Appellant echoes what is disclosed in the Specification, stating that the “improvement in the technological field of the invention is provided by constructing a combination spectrum to which a mass spectrum of a complex sample can be compared.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues that recited limitations in which a mass spectrum is obtained are “directly tied to the technological field of the improvement (identification of microorganisms using MALDI mass spectrometry), and explicitly recite method steps that provide an improvement in that technology to address a problem discussed in the specification.” Id. at 8. The Eligibility Guidance lists considerations “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application,” including “an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.” 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (footnote omitted). Appellant argues that the method Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 10 recited in the claim cannot be performed without a mass spectrometer, making the machine is “‘integral to the claim.’” Appeal Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. First, we address Appellant’s “machine” argument. There are several cases which have examined when a machine or device provides an additional element which integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. In EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 830 Fed.Appx. 634 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the claims were directed to a system for washing turbine engines which comprised a washing unit, an information detector, and a control unit. The court found that the claims were “directed to a specific combination of a type of washing unit, information detector, and control unit, configured in a certain way to create technical improvements to systems for washing jet engines.” EcoServices, 830 Fed.Appx. at 643. For this reason, the court concluded “when we consider the claims at issue ‘in their entirety,’ we conclude that ‘their character as a whole’ is not directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 645. Claims directed to a device were held to be patent eligible by the Federal Circuit in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In CardioNet, the claims were directed to a cardiac monitoring device for detecting and analyzing cardiac activity. CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1365. The court found that the claimed device “more accurately detects the occurrence of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, as distinct from V-TACH and other arrhythmias” by analyzing “‘variability in the beat-to-beat timing’ for ‘atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the beat- to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats identified by the ventricular beat Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 11 detector.’” Id. at 1366. The court determined that these elements provided an improvement to cardiac monitoring technology as opposed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1369-1370. The court rejected arguments that the claim was merely automating diagnostic processes that doctors have long used. Id. at 1370. Instead, the court found it “difficult to fathom how doctors mentally or manually used ‘logic to identify the relevance of the variability [in the beat- to-beat timing] using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat interval’ as required by claim 10.” Id. at 1371. The claims in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017) were directed to a system for tracking motion of an object relative to a reference frame. The system comprises two inertial sensors, one on the tracked object and the other on the moving reference frame. Id. The system also had an element to receive the signals and determine the orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame. Id. The court found the claims “are not merely directed to the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame,”’ but instead “are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348- 1349. For this reason, the court concluded that the claims at issue “are not directed to an abstract idea,” but rather “specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.” Id. at 1349. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 12 The claims at issue in this appeal can be distinguished from the patent-eligible claims in EcoServices, CardioNet, and Thales. In both EcoServices and Thales, there was a specific arrangement of claim elements which integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. In EcoServices, the configuration of the washing unit, information detector, and control unit integrated the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, and in Thales, it was the configuration of the inertial sensors. The functions provided by the cardiac monitoring device in CardioNet provided a patent- eligible improvement to cardiac monitoring technology. See also iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 2021 WL 117027 (Fed. Cir. 2021).4 Here, Appellant has not attributed the technological improvement to the configuration of the MALDI time-of-flight mass spectrometer as in EcoServices and Thales. Nor has Appellant identified a function of the spectrometer that integrates the abstract ideas recited in the claim into a practical application like the cardiac monitoring activity of the device did in CardioNet. The spectrometer in claim 1 merely gathers the data which is used in the subsequent comparing steps of the claim. Ans. 5. Appellant has not provided adequate support for its position that providing the data, 4 “[T]he claims in CardioNet were not abstract because they focused on a specific means or method that improved cardiac monitoring technology, improving the detection of, and allowing more reliable and immediate treatment of, atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. 955 F.3d at 1368. In contrast, claim 1 of the ’796 patent is not focused on a specific means or method to improve motion sensor systems, nor is it directed to a specific physical configuration of sensors. It merely recites a motion sensor system that evaluates movement of a body using static and dynamic acceleration information.” Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 13 without an improvement in how the data collection is accomplished by the MALDI time-of-flight mass spectrometer, makes the machine “integral to the claim” and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. We are also not persuaded that reciting a machine in the claim is sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. For example, in Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2021), there was a claim to an “improved digital camera comprising . . . image sensors, analog-to-digital converting circuitry. . . image memory. . . and a digital image processor.” The camera in the claim produced two digital images which were used by the image processor in the camera to generate “a resultant digital image from said first digital image enhanced with said second digital image.” Id. The court agreed with the district court that the claim “is directed to the abstract idea of taking two pictures (which may be at different exposures) and using one picture to enhance the other in some way.” Yu, 1 F.4th at 1045. Although the camera in Yu could be characterized as integral to the claim because it collects the digital image data used in the image enhancement, the court found that the camera only performed a basic image- producing function and that “the claimed configuration does not add sufficient substance to the underlying abstract idea of [digital image] enhancement.” Yu, 1 F.4th at 1045. The claims in this appeal are no different: the spectrometer performs its basic function in collecting mass spectrum data that is subsequently used to compare the sample mass spectrum to reference mass spectra. Simply reciting the spectrometer in the claim does not transform the abstract into a practical application. The machine must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 14 performed” for it “to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We cannot conclude this is the case here when the spectrometer merely provides the information used to make the subsequent mental comparisons recited in the claim. Therefore, as found by the Examiner, none of steps (a), (b), or (c) are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. We also consider the data gathering performed using the mass spectrometer to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (fn. 31 (“For example, a mere data gathering such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”)). Next, we consider the technological improvement asserted by Appellant. As explained above (supra at 8-9), the improvement described in the Specification, and summarized by Appellant, “is provided by constructing a combination spectrum to which a mass spectrum of a complex sample can be compared.” Appeal Br. 6; see Spec. ¶¶ 13, 15. This improvement is reflected in step (d)-(g) of claim. However, these steps constitute the abstract idea as explained under Step 2A, Prong One, and are not the “additional elements” needed to integrate an abstract idea into practical application. Specifically, the comparisons between mass spectra and the construction of a “combination spectrum” as in steps (d) through (f) of the claim could all be accomplished mentally and visually with the aid of pen and paper. As indicated by the Examiner, and discussed above, the spectrometer generates the data used in this abstract idea, and is no different Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 15 than the patent-ineligible digital camera in Yu. “The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept.” Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The additional element necessary to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application must be “beyond the judicial exception.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55. Unlike in CardioNet where a doctor could not “mentally or manually” do what the device accomplished (CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1370), Appellant has not established that any of the broadly recited steps in claim 1 could not be done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. Because we find that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2, Prong Two, we proceed to Step 2B of the analysis Step 2B Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidance asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, we must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present,” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner found steps (a), (b), and (c) of claim are drawn “to the routine, conventional and well understood use of MALDI sample preparation as described by the instant specification (see par. 0005).” Final Act. 4. The Examiner provided evidence that the collection of mass spectra Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 16 using a spectrometer to identify bacteria was routine at the time of the invention. Id. at 4-5. Appellant did not rebut the Examiner’s findings about the conventionality of step (a)-(c). Instead, Appellant argues that the Examiner disregarded these steps in considering whether a mass spectrometer is integral to the claims and that their conventionality is irrelevant to the determination under Step 2A, Prong Two. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant that the conventionality of steps (a), (b), and (c), for the purposes of analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, is not relevant to the determination of whether the abstract idea recited in a claim is integrated into a practical application. We have fully addressed this issue under the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, and determined that these steps performed using a MALDI time-of-flight spectrometer do not integrate the abstract idea of steps (d)-(g) into a practical application. Appellant has not demonstrated that the conventional steps in which a mass spectrum of bacteria is produced in combination with the analysis of this data using reference spectrum provides an inventive concept. The improvement described by Appellant is in the way that the data from the mass spectra are analyzed, namely, selecting best matches of reference mass spectra to the sample spectrum obtained from the mass spectrometer (steps (d) and (e)), combining the matching reference spectra to form a combination spectrum (step (f)), and then comparing the sample spectrum to it (step (g)). These steps are all abstract. Appellant did not explain how producing a sample spectrum by a conventional mass spectrometer provides an inventive concept. Appeal 2020-004782 Application 12/695,235 17 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed. Appellant provides the same arguments for independent claim 11. The rejection of claim 11 is affirmed for the same reasons. Separate arguments were not provided for claim 2-10, 12-14, and 17-20. These claims therefore fall with independent claims 1 and 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-14, 17-20 101 Eligibility 1-14, 17-20 TIME PERIOD 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).