MasterCard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2020

13934748 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2020)

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.
13/934,748 07/03/2013 John Delton Chisholm 21652-00271 5320
75564 7590 07/21/2020
DANIEL M. FITZGERALD (21652)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
ALLADIN, AMBREEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2020 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN DELTON CHISHOLM, THEUNIS JOHANNES GERBER,
PETER J. GROARKE, ISHFAQ A. LONE, and MARK B. WIESMAN
____________

Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jurisdiction
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–20, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant states the real party in interest is
Mastercard International Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

2
We AFFIRM.2
Summary of the Invention
The claims relate to systems and methods for evaluating a risk of
fraud in a payment card transaction. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claims App. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is
reproduced in Table 1, infra.

Rejections3
Claims Rejected4 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1–20 101 Subject Matter Eligibility
Final Act. 16–20.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–20 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 26, 2019, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed November 6, 2019, “Reply Brief”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
September 6, 2019, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed January 28, 2019,
“Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed May 25, 2016, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
3 The Application was examined under the first inventor to file provisions of
the AIA. Final Act. 2.
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 30.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

3
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We
provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific
arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s
arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
CLAIMS 1–20: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant argues the merits of the claims as a group without reference
to the limitations of any specific claim. See Appeal Br. 7–13. Therefore, we
decide the appeal of the § 101 rejection on the basis of illustrative Claim 1
and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
We reviewed the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (“Whether
a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we
review de novo.”). Based upon our review of the record in light of recent
policy guidance with respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 101,5 we affirm the rejection of Claims 1–20 for the
specific reasons discussed below.
The Examiner’s Findings and Appellant’s Contentions.
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to certain methods of
organizing human activity which category is used to describe fundamental
economic principles or practices including the mitigation of risk presently at
issue. Ans. 31. Appellant characterizes risk mitigation as a technology

5 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

4
which the claims improve. Appeal Br. 10 (“[T]he claims provide an
improvement to the technical field of accurately detecting fraudulent
transactions conducted over a payment network”).
35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
long recognized, however, that § 101 implicitly excludes “[l]aws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of patent-eligible
subject matter, as monopolization of these “‘basic tools of scientific and
technological work’” would stifle the very innovation that the patent system
aims to promote. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981).
Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether
Appellant’s claims recite:
1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes), and
2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then reach the
issue of whether the claim:
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

5
3. adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
4. simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Whether the claims recite a judicial exception
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract-idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter:
(a) mathematical concepts,6 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas, equations,7 and mathematical calculations8; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices
(including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or

6 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging . . .
reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable abstract idea.”).
7 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded
the protection of our patent laws”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594
(1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”).
8 SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas).
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

6
instructions)9; and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).10
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites: “A computer-based
method of a Risk Based Decisioning Service (RBDS) for evaluating a risk of
fraud associated with a payment card transaction processed over a payment
card interchange network, the method implemented by a processor coupled
to a memory device, the method comprising.” The limitations recited in the
body of the claim are analyzed in Table I against the categories of abstract
ideas as set forth in the Revised Guidance. As set forth in Table I below, we
find limitations [g], [h], and [i] of independent Claim 1 recite abstract ideas,
i.e., “mental processes.”
Table I
Claim 1 Revised Guidance
[a]11 receiving, electronically, by
the processor, from a point-of-sale
(POS) terminal, over the payment
card interchange network, payment
card transaction messages, in an
electronic form, relating to a
purchase transaction using a
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, i.e., mere
data-gathering. See Revised
Guidance at 55.

9 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate
settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an abstract
idea); see Revised Guidance, at 52 n.13 for a more extensive listing of
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” that have been found to be
abstract ideas.
10 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“‘[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work’” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972))).
11 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

7
payment card account of an account
holder, the payment card transaction
messages including at least one of
an authorization request message
and an authorization response
message, the payment card
interchange network being a
communication network for
processing payment card
transactions, the processor
communicatively coupled to both
the payment card interchange
network and a second network, the
second network being a web-based
network separate from the payment
card interchange network;
[b] storing data elements of the
payment card transaction messages
in an RBDS data store;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, mere data-
storage. See Revised Guidance at
55.
[c] receiving, electronically, by the
processor, an application event
transaction message, in an
electronic form, relating to a non-
purchase electronic interaction with
the payment card account by the
account holder, the non-purchase
interaction initiated with a computer
device by the account holder, over
the second network, the non-
purchase interaction occurring prior
to the purchase transaction, wherein
the non-purchase interaction
includes a verification interaction
that verifies an identity of the
account holder to a website
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, i.e., mere
data-gathering. See Revised
Guidance at 55.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

8
accessed by the account holder,
wherein the computer device is
different than the POS terminal;
[d] storing data elements of the
application event transaction
message in the RBDS data store;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, mere data-
storage. See Revised Guidance at
55.
[e] receiving, electronically, by the
processor, payment card account
reputation messages, in an
electronic form, wherein the
payment card account reputation
messages include historical data
relating to the trustworthiness of the
payment card account, the payment
card account reputation messages
received prior to the purchase
transaction;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, i.e., mere
data-gathering. See Revised
Guidance at 55.
[f] storing data elements of the
payment card account reputation
messages in the RBDS data store;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, mere data-
storage. See Revised Guidance at
55.
[g] analyzing the payment card
transaction messages and
application event transaction
message together to generate an
application event transaction trust
score for the purchase transaction;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Revised Guidance at 52.
[h] comparing, by the processor, at
least one electronic data element in
each of the stored payment card
transaction messages to a
corresponding at least one
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Revised Guidance at 52.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

9
electronic data element in the stored
payment card account reputation
messages to generate an
authorization fraud score for the
purchase transaction;
[i] modifying the generated
authorization fraud score for the
purchase transaction using the
application event transaction trust
score of the payment card account,
the modified authorization fraud
score indicating at least one of a risk
of fraud associated with the
purchase transaction and a
trustworthiness of the payment card
account used in the purchase
transaction; and
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Revised Guidance at 52.
[j] outputting the modified
authorization fraud score for the
purchase transaction through the
payment card interchange network,
the modified authorization fraud
score provided to at least one party
to the purchase transaction for use
in approving or denying the
purchase transaction.
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception, i.e., mere
data-transmission. See Revised
Guidance at 55.

Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above,
we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein the “claims are
considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

10
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotes and citation
omitted). This test determines whether the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying
whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application.
For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a
Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”
“In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether
the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or
“any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant contends the: “claims do not recite an abstract idea. For
example, Claim 1 recites a computer-based method of a Risk Based
Decisioning Service (RBDS) for evaluating a risk of fraud associated with a
payment card transaction processed over a payment card interchange
network.” Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellant’s characterization, we find the claims to be
similar to those of FairWarning12 which claimed a system and method of
detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, comprising
collecting information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health
information, analyzing the information according to one of several rules to

12 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

11
determine if the activity indicates improper access, and providing
notification if it determines that improper access has occurred. 839 F.3d at
1092. The court determined that these claims were directed to the abstract
concept of “collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and
notifying a user when misuse is detected.” The court also noted that the
claimed rules there were unlike those in McRO because the claimed rules in
FairWarning asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with
different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have
asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d at 1094–95.
The present claims recite steps such as receiving transaction
messages, storing data, analyzing transaction messages, comparing,
modifying a fraud score, and outputting a fraud score. See Claim 1. Thus,
the claimed method recites “generalized steps to be performed on a
computer using conventional computer activity.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG
Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Appellant’s
contentions do not proffer “specific asserted improvements in computer
capabilities [but, rather] a process [or system] that qualifies an abstract idea
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs.,
LLC v. DISH Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotes
and citation omitted).
MPEP § 2106.05(b): Particular Machine
The Bilski machine-or-transformation test is only applicable to
method (process) claims. However, “[r]egardless of what statutory category
(‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

12
underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, it is
clear that the invention underlying the system of Claim 8 and the storage
media of Claim 15, is the method of Claim 1. We therefore, analyze the
machine prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
Appellant discloses generic machines and software are suitable:
system 100 includes a server system 112, and a plurality of
client sub-systems, also referred to as client systems 114,
connected to server system 112. In one embodiment, client
systems 114 are computers including a web browser, such that
server system 112 is accessible to client systems 114 using the
Internet. Client systems 114 are interconnected to the Internet
through many interfaces including a network 115, such as a
local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), dial-
in-connections, cable modems, and special high-speed
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) lines. Client
systems 114 could be any device capable of interconnecting to
the Internet including a web-based phone, PDA, or other web-
based connectable equipment.
Spec. ¶ 37. We find no indication, nor does Appellant direct our attention,
that the claimed invention relies on other than generic devices or uses other
than generic software. We, therefore, conclude Appellant’s claims fail to
satisfy the machine prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c): Particular Transformation
This section of the MPEP guides: “Another consideration when
determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing.” “‘Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or
thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

13
particular machines.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 70).
The claims select and analyze certain electronic data. The selection of
electronic data is not a “transformation or reduction of an article into a
different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]” See In
re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data . . . does not
satisfy the transformation prong.”). Applying this guidance here, we
conclude Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong
of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e): Other Meaningful Limitations
This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175 . . . (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to
the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of
nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding
press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 . . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184,
187. . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. . . . In particular, the Court
concluded that the additional elements such as the data
processing system and communications controllers recited in
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

14
the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via
computers”) or were well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225.
We find that Appellant’s claims do not add meaningful limitations
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
Appellant does not persuasively argue that their claims do any more
than invoke generic computer components merely as a tool in which the
computer instructions apply the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The claims acquire and display data, which are classic examples of
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (en
banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S. 593.
MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological
Environment
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

15
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(citations omitted).
In view of Table I, above, we find Limitations [g]–[i] recite abstract
mental processes and the remaining limitations recite insignificant extra-
solution activity. Thus, we find the claimed data-manipulation is simply a
field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments
because the mere application of an abstract idea in a particular field is not
sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See
84 Fed. Reg. at 55, n.32. In view of the foregoing, we conclude the claims
are “directed to” a judicial exception.
B. Well-understood, routine, conventional
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; see Appeal Br. 23 (citing the “Berkheimer
Memorandum”).13 As discussed above, the written description describes the
claimed computer system consistent with its being “well-understood,
routine, [and] conventional.”

13 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Comm’r for Patent
Examination Policy, to Patent Examining Corps, U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (April 19, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

16
C. Specified at a high level of generality
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite any Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
We find the limitations are specified at such a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Considering the claim
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing to the abstract idea that
is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered combination of limitations amounts to
nothing more than certain mental processes implemented with generic
computer components that operate “in a conventional way.” See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26. Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,”
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to
sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject
matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20 --
Appeal 2020-000739
Application 13/934,748

17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED