Nathan Snape et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14804534 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/804,534 07/21/2015 Nathan Snape 81389US01;
67097-3266US1
2324
54549 7590 09/30/2019
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
400 West Maple Road
Suite 350
Birmingham, MI 48009
EXAMINER
BEEBE, JOSHUA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
ptodocket@cgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATHAN SNAPE, GABRIEL L. SUCIU, BRIAN D. MERRY,
and JESSE M. CHANDLER

Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 21. 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 United
Technologies Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A gas turbine engine comprising:
rotating components including a main compressor section
having a high pressure compressor with a downstream
discharge, and more upstream locations;
said rotating components also including a turbine section
having a high pressure turbine;
a tap tapping air from at least one of said more upstream
locations in said compressor section, passing said tapped air
through a heat exchanger and then to a cooling compressor, said
cooling compressor compressing air downstream of said heat
exchanger, and delivering air to at least one of said rotating
components;
said heat exchanger also receiving air to be delivered to an
aircraft cabin; and
said turbine section also including a fan drive turbine, said
fan drive turbine driving a fan rotor, and a bypass ratio being
defined as a volume of air delivered into a bypass duct as
propulsion air compared to a volume of air delivered into said
compressor section, with said bypass ratio being greater then
6.0, and said fan drive turbine driving said fan through a gear
reduction.

EVIDENCE
Elovic US 4,254,618 Mar. 10, 1981
Coffinberry US 5,392,614 Feb. 28, 1995
Glickstein US 5,452,573 Sept. 26, 1995
Yoshinaka US 6,134,880 Oct. 24, 2000
Bruno US 2007/0213917 A1 Sept. 13, 2007
Jarrell US 2010/0005810 A1 Jan. 14, 2010
Glahn US 2011/0247344 A1 Oct. 13, 2011
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

3
Sennoun US 2012/0216545 A1 Aug. 30, 2012
Berryann US 2013/0000317 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Kupratis US 2013/0192258 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
Ress, Jr. US 2013/0199156 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Bacic US 2014/0208768 A1 July 31, 2014
Schwarz US 2014/0260326 A1 Sept. 18, 2014

REJECTIONS
I. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Elovic, Glickstein, Kupratis, Yoshinaka, and Sennoun.2
II. Claims 2, 4, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, and Sennoun.
III. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, and Bacic.
IV. Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, and
“an engineering expedient.”
V. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, “an
engineering expedient,” and Bruno.3
VI. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, “an engineering
expedient,” Bruno,4 and Jarrell.

2 Coffinberry is cited as evidence. Final Act. 7.
3 Although Berryann is listed in the Examiner’s summary of the rejection,
Bruno is relied on as evidence. Final Act. 14–15.
4 Although Berryann is listed in the Examiner’s summary of the rejection,
Bruno is relied on as evidence. Final Act. 17.
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

4
VII. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, “an
engineering expedient,” Bruno,5 Jarrell, and Ress, Jr.
VIII. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, and
Bruno.6
IX. Claim 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Elovic, Glickstein, Yoshinaka, Sennoun, Bruno, and
Jarrell.

ANALYSIS
Rejections I and II
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 21 as a group, and does
not present separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 2
and 4. Appeal Br. 2–4. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2, 4,
and 21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Elovic
discloses, inter alia, a main compressor section (i.e., compressor 20) having
a high pressure compressor with a downstream discharge and also upstream
locations, a turbine section having a high pressure turbine (i.e., high pressure
turbine 36), a tap tapping air from the main compressor section, wherein the
tapped air is passed through a heat exchanger (i.e., heat exchanger 54) and

5 Although Berryann is listed in the Examiner’s summary of the rejection,
Bruno is relied on as evidence. Final Act. 19.
6 Although Berryann is listed in the Examiner’s summary of the rejection,
Bruno is relied on as evidence. Final Act. 15–16.
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

5
delivered to the turbine section (i.e., rotating components), as claimed. Final
Act. 6 (citing Elovic 3:45–64, 5:5–25, Fig. 2). The Examiner relies on
Elovic for disclosing to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the tap may
be from one of the upstream locations of the high pressure compressor,
because Elovic teaches that it may be desirable to extract the cooling air
from the compressor at a location other than the compressor discharge. Id.
(citing Elovic 6:30–40); see Elovic 6:30–32 (“it may be desirable to extract
the cooling air from the compressor 20 at a location other than the
compressor discharge”).
The Examiner determines that Elovic fails to disclose a cooling
compressor downstream from the heat exchanger, as claimed, and the
Examiner relies on Glickstein for disclosing tapping air from high pressure
compressor 84 and passing the air to a cooling compressor (i.e., auxiliary
compressor 50), which is downstream from heat exchanger 42. Final Act.
6–7 (citing, e.g., Glickstein 6:15–35, Fig. 2).
The Examiner also relies on Glickstein for generally teaching that “[i]t
is desirable to provide high pressure cooled air, over a wide range of
pressures for engine needs.” Final Act. 6 (citing Glickstein 1:15–20, 45–51,
2:30–37) (emphasis added); see also id. at 6:19–22 (“selector valve 250 is
used to divert a portion of compressed air from the high compressor 84
through either the interstage bleed 101 or the exit stage bleed 100, depending
on the current requirements for cool air on the vehicle 10”) (emphasis
added). Notably, Glickstein discloses that it is known to tap air from
multiple locations of a compressor section 18 of a turbine engine 12 having a
low pressure compressor 82 and a high pressure compressor 84, including,
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

6
for example, (i) at “an exit stage bleed 100” at the downstream end of the
high pressure compressor 84 (Glickstein 2:49–51); (ii) at “an interstage
bleed 101,” as depicted in Figure 2 of Glickstein as located upstream of the
downstream end of high pressure compressor 84 (id. at 5:29–31); and (iii) at
the downstream end of low pressure compressor 82, as depicted in Figures 1
and 2 of Glickstein as tapping compressed air 22, and as described in
Glickstein as exiting the low pressure compressor for use as a coolant for
heat exchangers 40, 41 (id. at 3:9–14, 17–20). Glickstein discloses that air
tapped from exit stage bleed 100 has a higher pressure (i.e., a second
pressure) than air tapped from interstage bleed 101 (i.e., a third pressure),
which has a higher pressure than air tapped from the downstream end of low
pressure compressor 82 (i.e., a first pressure). See, e.g., id. at 2:46–51, 6:25–
37.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to have
modified Elovic’s cooling air system to include an auxiliary cooling
compressor downstream of the heat exchanger, as taught by Glickstein, to
provide “improved pressure of cooling from lower stage, (colder) air, but
still meeting the high pressure cooling needs of the turbine.” Final Act. 7.
The Examiner determines that Elovic also fails to disclose that the
heat exchanger also receives air to be delivered to an aircraft cabin, as
claimed, and the Examiner relies on Yoshinaka for disclosing that “[i]t is
known that bleed air extracted from core air and then delivered to a heat
exchanging intercooler elements, can be utilized for multiple things such as
cooling a turbine and environmental control system aircraft cabin air
supply.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing Yoshinaka 2:18–25, 6:25–45). The
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

7
Examiner further relies on Sennoun for teaching that “[i]t is well-known in
the [environmental control systems (ECS)] cooling arts to utilize engine
bleed air ducted through heat exchangers,” and that “decreasing the overall
weight of the pre-cooler and ECS systems (heat exchanger being a partial
step in such systems) should be desirable to reduce fuel cost and improve
engine efficiency.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Sennoun ¶¶ 9, 12, 13). The Examiner
specifically relies on Sennoun for expressly disclosing that “some of that
heat exchanging bypass air should instead be sent through the heat
exchanger as desired to improve control of temperature of the air supplied to
the ECS.” Ans. 6. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious,
in view of Yoshinaka and Sennoun, to modify Elovic’s cooling air system,
as modified by Glickstein, to use a portion of the cooling air from the
auxiliary cooling compressor for aircraft cabin cooling, in addition to
delivering a portion of the cooling air to rotating components, for example,
of the turbine engine, such that the number of bleed ports and heat
exchangers are reduced and thereby improving weight and costs associated
with the cooling system. Final Act. 8.
Finally, the Examiner determines that Elovic is silent regarding the
bypass ratio for the turbine engine, and relies on Kupratis for disclosing that
a fan bypass ratio of “6:1 or 10:1” is “desirable,” and that “[such] fans are
operable under a gear reduction ratio between [the] driving turbine shaft and
[the] fan.” Final Act. 8 (citing Kupratis ¶¶ 49, 50). The Examiner also finds
that Kupratis teaches that “gear reduction provides for a range of different
rotational speeds of the fan drive turbine, and the fan,” and thus, “permits
the low pressure compressor and low spool to operate at a higher speed.” Id.
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

8
(citing Kupratis ¶ 82). The Examiner reasons that it would have been
obvious to modify Elovic, “which does not specify a particular bypass ratio”
or “gear reduction,” as modified by the teachings of Glickstein, Yoshinaka,
and Sennoun supra, “[to] improv[e] fan drive turbine efficiency, and bypass
thrust, [and to] reduc[e] fuel consumption of the engine.” Id. at 8–9.
As an initial matter, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on
a large number of prior art references in the statement of the rejection
weighs against the obviousness of the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 2–3;
Reply Br. 1. However, while we note that the Examiner cited as many as six
references to support the conclusion of prima facie obvious, it is well settled
that the number of references required to show obviousness does not, by
itself, demonstrate that the claimed subject matter would have been
unobvious to an ordinary artisan. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming obviousness rejection over thirteen references)
(“The criterion . . . is not the number of references, but what they would
have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”).
Here, as discussed infra, the Examiner applies the teachings of the prior art
references properly, such that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness has
sufficient rational underpinning, notwithstanding the number of references
relied on in the rejection. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (requiring an obviousness conclusion to be based on explicit
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning) cited with approval in KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no showing as to why ‘it may be
desirable’ to tap the air from any other location,” in Elovic, such that “[t]he
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

9
only teaching on this record as to a reason for tapping the air from such a
location is Appellant’s disclosure.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant submits that
neither the Examiner nor Elovic provide a reason why it is desirable to tap
air from any position other than the exit location of Elovic’s high pressure
compressor section. Reply Br. 1. Appellant concludes that the Examiner
improperly relied on hindsight. Appeal Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, as correctly
stated by the Examiner, Elovic indeed teaches tapping air from any desirable
location along the compressor section, and not solely from the compressor
discharge. Ans. 3 (“it is clear that Elovic does in fact teach the disputed
feature”); see In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), citing
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–421 (“[a] reference may be read for all that it teaches,
including uses beyond its primary purpose”). Second, Glickstein expressly
discloses tapping at interstage 101 of high compressor section 84, as set
forth supra, as well as providing a reason for tapping at various locations
along the compressor, as set forth supra: air tapped at the exit end of low
pressure compressor 82 has a first pressure lower than a third pressure of air
tapped at interstage 101 within high pressure compressor 84, which has a
pressure lower than a second pressure of air tapped at the exit end of high
pressure compressor 84, because it is desirable to provide high pressure
cooled air over a wide range of pressures for engine needs. See also
Glickstein 6:18–22 (disclosing that “a portion of compressed air from the
high [pressure] compressor 84 [is tapped] through either the interstage bleed
101 or the exit stage bleed 100 depending on the current requirements for
cool air on the vehicle 10”) (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant’s argument
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

10
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, and
Appellant’s hindsight argument is of no moment where, as here, the
Examiner provided a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the
references. See In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant also argues that Yoshinaka fails to disclose “a single heat
exchanger being utilized for both cooling air for a rotating component, and
for the cabin air system,” as claimed, and that “[although] there are a number
of alternative applications, . . . [n]o dual applications are mentioned.”
Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 3.
Again, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Glickstein
expressly discloses that, in operation and with respect to air tapped from
interstage bleed 101 of high pressure compressor 84, the tapped air flows
through heat exchanger 40 to auxiliary compressor 50 where the air exits at a
fourth pressure and is delivered to second heat exchanger 41, where the flow
is further cooled and sent to the components 301 of the vehicle, while a
portion of the flow is delivered, via heat exchanger 41, to auxiliary turbine
52, “[wherein] the portion bled from the high pressure compressor 84 is
expanded through the auxiliary turbine 52, thereby producing cooled,
relatively low pressure air for cooling components of the vehicle.”
Glickstein 4:16–21; id. at Glickstein 6:14–60, Fig. 2. In other words,
Glickstein discloses using heat exchanger 40, wherein heat exchanger 40 is
employed in a system that produces multiple cooling air streams for different
aircraft needs. Thus, in view of these teachings of Glickstein, and
Yoshinaka’s further disclosure of using “mass bleed flow” for an
“environmental control system . . . or for aircraft cabin air supply”
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

11
(Yoshinaka 6:29–37), and Sennoun’s further disclosure of connecting a
“bleed air outlet line [to] the heat exchanger cooling circuit to the
environmental control system,” (Sennoun ¶ 12), we determine that the
Examiner’s reasoning that it would have been obvious to use a portion of the
cooling air stream from Elovic’s cooling air system to cool the turbine
blades, while also using a portion of the cooling air stream to cool the cabin
air, is sufficiently supported by factual underpinning.
Appellant further argues that although Kupratis “may disclose a
bypass ratio and a gear reduction, . . . this does not provide any incentive to
modify Elovic in an manner.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant submits that, with
respect to the claimed invention, “the use of the gear reduction and the high
bypass ratio provides synergistic benefits in combination with the cooling
system.” Id.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Kupratis. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant’s argument also does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning, as set forth supra, that using
Kupratis’ bypass ratio and gear reduction would improve fan drive turbine
efficiency, and bypass thrust, and reduce fuel consumption of the engine, as
taught in Kupratis. “The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, and 21 fall therewith.

Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

12
Rejection III
Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, which depends from
independent claim 21, recites, in relevant part, “wherein a mixer is provided
downstream of said cooling compressor to receive air from the high pressure
compressor to mix with the air downstream of the cooling compressor.”
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Bacic for teaching
mixing an air flow with a portion of high pressure compressor air before
passing the air to a high pressure turbine. Final Act. 12 (citing Bacic ¶ 46).
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Elovic, as
modified supra, “such that [the air exiting the cooling compressor] was then
delivered to mixing nozzles, mixers and combined with [high pressure
compressor] discharge air, as taught by Bacic, for improved effectiveness of
the cooling air and mixing, which prevents excessive and uneven cooling.”
Id. The Examiner further reasons that “[o]ne of ordinary skill would
understand that Bacic’s desire to modulate the cooling air with [high
pressure compressor] air prior to introducing to the turbine would be
applicable with the cooling air of [Elovic], and one of ordinary skill would
be able to apply this with some reasonable expectation of success given the
similar treatments of the air[] [flows].” Ans. 7–8.
Appellant argues that “Bacic does not mix a lower pressure tap with a
higher pressure tap,” but rather, “both pressure taps heading into the mixing
chamber of Bacic come from the compressor discharge,” wherein “[o]ne is
cooled, one is not, however, that is not what is being delivered to the mixing
chamber of claim 3.” Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

13
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Bacic for disclosing the use of high pressure compressor bleed
air as a mixing ingredient in a turbine engine coolant supply system, neither
does Appellant’s argument apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reasoning
that it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to apply
Bacic’s teaching to Elovic’s product stream of cooling air prior to delivery
to aircraft components or the cabin itself.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

Rejections IV, VI, and IX
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on “an ‘engineering
expedient’” and Jarrell does not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of the independent claims, as presented in Rejection I supra.
Appeal Br. 4. Because we do not agree that the Examiner’s rejection has
deficiencies, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 11, and 14
for essentially the same reasons as stated in Rejection I supra.

Rejections V, VII, and VIII
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, the Examiner relies on, inter
alia, Bruno for disclosing that
[i]t is known to utilize a tower shaft[](62) to power several
auxiliary devices needed by an engine through an accessory gear
box. . . . “[I]it is well-known and obvious that among the items
driven by accessory gear boxes are pumps, i.e.[,]
compressors)][.] This is achieved by utilizing a bull gear[](68)
attached to the low spool shaft (therefore driven by the low
pressure turbine, therefore the turbine section is driving the tower
shaft through the bull gear. This improves over driving said
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

14
gearbox and accessories from a high power shaft, as on the low
spool, a larger inertia may be provided and therefore the spool is
more tolerant to power extraction, which further improves the
high spool operating margins, by removing the need for a surge
margin to accommodate power extraction on the high speed
spool.
Final Act. 15–17 (citing Bruno ¶¶ 6, 7, 12, 14, 17–20). The Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious
to modify the auxiliary cooling compressor and additional
elements of the engine of [Elovic] to be powered by a tower shaft
and auxiliary gear box powered by a bull gear as taught by
Bruno, for the purpose o[f] providing additional elements
powered by the engine such as generators, etc[.], as well as power
the pump of [Elovic] and [Glickstein], as a known in the art
alternative method for powering said pump and with advantages
in engine operation over powering them from the high spool shaft
as they are typical powered.
Id. at 15.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the Examiner relies on, inter alia, Ress,
Jr. for disclosing that
[i]t can be desirable to include auxiliary fans[](32) operated at
variable speeds downstream of primary fans[](30) but upstream
of the bypass duct[](36) and the elements within it. . . . The
system variable speed rotating loads may be utilized to operate
in a variable cycle, with varying high thrust low bypass modes
when desirable, reducing a need to operate over a wide range of
engine spool speeds, to improve the transient characteristics of
the engine.
Id. at 19 (citing Ress, Jr. ¶¶ 5, 12, 17–21, 28). The Examiner reasons that it
would have been obvious
to modify the engine of [Elovic] to include an auxiliary fan
downstream of the primary fan and upstream of the bypass flow,
Appeal 2019-002683
Application 14/804,534

15
said fan capable of operating at variable speed, as taught by
[Ress, Jr.], for the purpose of improving the engine[’]s transient
operating conditions and its ability to operate in variable thrust
and bypass modes as desired.
Id.
Appellant argues that “adding all of this structure to drive the cooling
compressor takes away drive from the remainder of the engine,” such that
“the combination of Glickstein/Coffinberry with Elovic [is] even more
costly, and even less ‘undesirable.’” Appeal Br. 4.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings. We are also not
persuaded that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Elovic would not
have been obvious, in view of the Examiner’s reasoning as set forth supra.
Again, “[t]he fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of
another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the
benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”
Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir.
2000).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, 10,
12, and 13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14 and 21 is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED