Rolls-Royce North American Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 19, 2021

2020000784 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2021)

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. 15/253,978 09/01/2016 Bradley Eugene Auker 1106-262US01/LWA11686 5073 120486 7590 04/19/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. Rolls-Royce Corporation 1625 Radio Drive Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER REID JR, CHARLES H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2832 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2021 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRADLEY EUGENE AUKER and EDWARD CLAUDE RICE Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed Sept. 1, 2016 (“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated Sept. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed Nov. 6, 2019 (“Reply Br.”), the Declarations Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Bradley Eugene Auker filed Apr. 27, 2018 (“Decl. I”) and Nov. 26, 2018 (“Decl. II”), collectively “Declarations” or “inventor declarations.” 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Rolls-Royce North American Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 2 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a turbine engine that drives an electric generator for converting mechanical power produced by the turbine engine to electrical power. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. According to the Specification, “positioning an electric generator within a cooler section or cavity of a turbine engine [improves] overall heat dissipation from the electric generator, enable[s] easier maintenance of the electric generator, and generally improve[s] the overall design of the turbine engine.” Id. ¶ 12. The Specification describes positioning the electric generator between the inlet duct and the outer bypass duct in particular for more easily dissipating heat produced by the electric generator. Id. Appellant’s Figure 2 below is a conceptual diagram of electric generator 4 within turbine engine 2. Id. ¶ 8. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 3 Figure 2 above shows cavity 20 between inlet duct 14 and outer bypass duct 16, which is a cooler section of turbine engine 2 due to the proximity of cavity 20 to outer bypass duct 16. Id. ¶ 30. Component 26 may comprise of one or more magnets and be referred to as a rotor that may rotate with respect to component 24 which may comprise one or more electrical windings. Id. ¶ 34. Drive shaft 6 may drive the rotation of tower shaft 8 through gearbox 22A. Id. ¶ 33. Gearbox 22B may mechanically couple component 26 to tower shaft 8. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (disputed claim limitation italicized). 1. A turbine engine comprising: an intake; an inlet duct configured to receive fluid from the intake; an outer bypass duct configured to receive fluid from the intake; a drive shaft; a tower shaft mechanically coupled to the drive shaft; and an electric generator mechanically coupled to the tower shaft, wherein the electric generator is located between the inlet duct and the outer bypass duct, and wherein the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims Appendix) (disputed element italicized). Claims 11 and 15, directed to a method and an electric generator module, respectively, are the other independent claims in this Appeal. Id. at 35, 36. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 4 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the appealed rejections. The Examiner’s rejections rely on the following references: Name Reference Date Coffinberry US 2006/0042227 A1 Mar. 2, 2006 Ress US 2010/0107650 A1 May 6, 2010 Macchia US 2010/0327589 A1 Dec. 30, 2010 Dooley US 2012/0133150 A1 May 31, 2012 Veilleux US 2015/0048617 A1 Feb. 19, 2015 Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 5 The Examiner maintains the following rejections:3 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–20 112(a) Written description 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14 102(a) Ress 4 103 Ress, Coffinberry 7, 13 103 Ress, Veilleux 15, 16, 19, 20 103 Ress, Dooley 17, 18 103 Ress, Dooley, Veilleux 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14 103 Ress, Macchia 4 103 Ress, Macchia, Coffinberry 7, 13 103 Ress, Macchia, Veilleux Written Description Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lacking written description support in the Specification for claims 1 and 11’s recitation “wherein the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft” and claim 15’s recitation, inter alia, “wherein the power generation component surrounds the drive shaft.” Non-Final Act. 2. Appellant argues claims 1–20 together. Appeal Br. 5–15. Therefore, we confine our discussion of the written description rejection to claim 1, which we select as representative. Claims 2–20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). According to Appellant, the Examiner erred in dismissing the two inventor declarations in connection with this rejection without explaining why the evidence is insufficient. Appeal Br. 6, 8. Appellant contends the 3 The Examiner duplicates the rejections of claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 over Ress and Dooley and claims 17 and 18 over Ress, Dooley, and Veilleux in the Non-Final Office Action. Compare Non-Final Act. 9–12 with Non-Final Act. 17–20. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 6 declarations establish a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand electric generator 4 in Figures 1 and 2 circumferentially surrounds drive shaft 6. Id. at 6–7 (citing Decl. I ¶ 3). Specifically, Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would understand the Figures to show half of turbine engine 2 and that the components of turbine engine 2 are symmetrical about drive shaft 6. Id. at 11. Appellant contends the Examiner failed to provide a specific rebuttal to the inventor’s declaration regarding the relative positioning of stator 24 and rotor 26, a single set of electrical windings 42, and the positioning of mechanical element 40. Id. at 11–15 (citing Decl. II ¶ ¶ 3–6). Appellant’s position is that an accessory generator would be depicted differently from a circumferential generator because it would have another set of electrical windings facing compressor 10 that are not present in Appellant’s Figures 1–3 and portions of rotor 26 would be shown on both sides of stator 24. Id. at 11, 12, 14. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification and Figures support placing electric generator 4 between the inlet and outlet ducts for maintenance advantages, but do not suggest electric generator 4 surrounds drive shaft 6. Ans. 4. The focus is on the Specification, including the Figures and original claims, to discern whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant possessed what is claimed as of the filing date sought. See Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Adequate written description means that the applicant, in the specification, must ‘convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.’” (citation omitted)). As the Examiner points out, the Specification’s Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 7 disclosure that compressor 10 and drive shaft 6 may obstruct access to electric generator 4 if the electric generator is placed at a different location does not suggest that the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 26). If the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft, then the drive shaft could not be said to obstruct access to the electric generator. In the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts that Figures 2 and 3 by themselves may satisfy the written description requirement. Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant relies on the inventor declarations to support the argument that electric generator 4 surrounds drive shaft 6 because it would have been understood from Figures 2 and 3 that the electric generator rotates around the drive shaft. Id. Appellant’s position is that if there is any possibility the elements depicted in the Figures could be manipulated to technically rotate the electric generator around the drive shaft as the Declarations describe, then there is written description support for the recited “electric generator surrounds the drive shaft.” Id. at 2–3. Appellant’s arguments and evidence are not persuasive of error. The purpose of the written description requirement is to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The possession test alone, however, is not always sufficient to meet the written description requirement. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Rather, “the written description requirement is satisfied by the patentee’s disclosure of ‘such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 8 Cir. 1997)). It is not sufficient that the claimed feature can be developed from, computed from, or otherwise ascribed to the originally filed application. See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“It is ‘not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee’s device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.’” (citation omitted)). Appellant’s Declarations merely present an alternative embodiment that can be explained with reference to originally filed Figures 2 and 3. Rotation of the electric generator about the drive shaft is not even discussed in passing in the Specification. See Purdue Pharma LP v. Faulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Examples in a patent specification that possessed the claimed ratio in a pharmaceutical formulation failed to provide written description support for the claimed ratio where the written disclosure did not direct a skilled artisan to the claimed ratio.). There is nothing in the written description of the Specification that conveys to a skilled artisan that rotating the electric generator around the drive shaft is a defining property of the turbine engine. Nor does the disclosure motivate one to place the electric generator such that it surrounds the drive shaft in view of the express teaching that location of the electric generator is between that the inlet and outlet ducts otherwise the drive shaft may obstruct access to the electric generator. Spec. ¶ 26. The preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record therefore supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter does not have written description support in the Specification. Accordingly, we affirm Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 9 the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the above reasons and those provided by the Examiner. Anticipation The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Ress. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Ress’s Figures 1 and 2 disclose “the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft” recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Id. at 6, 7. Ress’s Figure 1 is shown below. Ress’s Figure 1 above is a cross sectional view of a gas turbine engine showing power device 125, which can be a generator, coupled to gear box 110 configured with device shaft 115 to transmit rotational power from shaft 90. Ress ¶¶ 4, 14–16. Appellant argues claim 1 in a group with claim 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8–10, and relies on the same arguments directed to claim 1 for the rejection of independent claim 11 which Appellant groups with claims 12 and 14. Appeal Br. 16–20. Appellant provides additional arguments with respect to claim 8, which depends from claim 1. Id. at 19–20. Accordingly, we address Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 10 claims 1 and 8 below and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–12, and 14 will stand or fall together with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 1 Appellant contends Ress’s Figure 1 does not show the exact same configuration of a turbine engine as Figure 2 of Appellant’s disclosure, noting that the Examiner does not identify elements that correspond to Appellant’s stator 24, rotor 23, mechanical element 40, electrical windings 42, or support elements 44 and 46. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the Examiner had not explained how Ress’s turbine engine could include the two power device embodiment described in Ress’s abstract or the variation shown in Ress’s Figure 6. Id. at 17–18. In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends it is improper for the Examiner to use the structures shown in Appellant’s Figures 2 and 3 to interpret Ress’s Figure 1 in view of the Appellant’s additional elements not shown in Ress’s Figure 1. Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Ress. Even if Ress’s Figure 1 is not exactly the same as Appellant’s Figure 2, the Examiner finds each of the claimed elements are present in Ress’s Figure 1. Non-Final Act. 5–6. Regarding the claim 1 recitation “electric generator surrounds the drive shaft,” the Examiner explains that Ress depicts the drive shaft and the electric generator in the same relative position as Appellant’s Figure 2 and Ress’s Figure 2 shows the front of the turbine engine in a circular shape that supports the drive shaft being centered in the middle with the electric generator surrounding. Ans. 10–11. The record supports the Examiner’s findings. Ress Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner additionally finds it is well known in the art that Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 11 electric generators comprise a rotor and stator and often times are not shown in drawings. Ans. 12. Appellant does not dispute this finding. Appellant’s arguments based on Ress’s additional embodiments disclosed are not persuasive of error because the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on these additional embodiments. Ans. 11. The preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record therefore supports the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Ress. Claim 8 Claim 8 further requires the electric generator of claim 1 comprises “a first component comprising a magnet, wherein the first component is coupled to the tower shaft; and a second component comprising a winding, wherein the second component is coupled to the compressor.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner identifies in Ress’s Figure 1 electric generator 125, tower shaft 115, compressor 75, and finds the recited magnet is inherent to a rotor. Non-Final Act. 6–7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Ress does not describe any portion of power device 125 that is coupled to compressor 75 let alone a winding of the power device. Appeal Br. 19. Appellant also argues that a skilled artisan would understand coupling the power device to the compressor would interfere with the potential removal or replacement of the power device described in Ress’s paragraph 20 and shown in Ress’s Figure 3. Id. at 19–20. We are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 8 as anticipated by Ress. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 12) that Ress discloses a power device may be coupled to any shaft Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 12 connecting a compressor to a turbine. See Reply Br. 9. The Examiner’s finding is supported by the record. Ress ¶ 13. Instead, Appellant’s argument is that Ress’s disclosure should be limited to shaft 90 connecting a compressor to a turbine rather than shaft 115 because Ress’s paragraph 11 identifies shaft 90 as connecting a low pressure turbine to a low pressure compressor and a high pressure turbine to a high pressure compressor. Reply Br. 9. Appellant’s argument does not identify error because the Examiner does not rely on the embodiment disclosed in Ress’s Figure 3. Ans. 13. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for the above reasons and those provided by the Examiner. Obviousness The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ress in combination with secondary references. We address below each of the claims separately argued by Appellant. Claim 4 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites in pertinent part “wherein the outer bypass duct comprises a bleed configured to provide cooling to the electric generator.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects claim 4 over the combination of (1) Ress and Coffinberry and (2) Ress, Macchia, and Coffinberry. Non-Final Act. 8, 16. Each of the rejections of claim 4 rely on Coffinberry for teaching a bleed configured to provide cooling to the electric generator. Id. at 8, 16 (citing Coffinberry Fig. 1, items 124 and 90). Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 13 Appellant persuasively argues that Coffinberry’s bleed air drives an air turbine rather than cools generator 90 as the Examiner finds. Appeal Br. 21–22, 31. The Examiner’s statement (Ans. 14–15, 21) that bleed air transported to the electric generator would inherently cool the electric generator is not supported by Coffinberry’s Figure 1, which does not direct air to generator 90. The Examiner does not adequately explain why cooling of generator 90 would be expected to occur inherently when bleed air 124 is directed to air turbine 97 instead. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 7 and 13 Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 13 is in error because there would have been no apparent reason for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ress’s system in view of Veilleux. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant additionally asserts that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability for the same reasons provided with respect to the anticipation rejection over Ress. Id. Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection, we likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons. Appellant’s conclusory assertion that the rejection lacks a reason to combine the cited references does not adequately explain error in the Examiner’s rejection, particularly where the rejection provides a reason to modify Ress. Non-Final Act. 9; see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) as requiring Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 14 “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 15 and 20 Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 20 is in error because there would have been no apparent reason for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ress’s system in view of Dooley. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant additionally asserts that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability for the same reasons provided with respect to the anticipation rejection over Ress. Id. at 25. Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection, we likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons. In addition, Appellant’s assertion that a skilled artisan would not have modified Ress with the Dooley’s teachings because Ress describes “a configuration [that] can provide for more compact packaging within the frame 105” is not persuasive of error because Appellant does not adequately explain why the proposed modification “could cause the packaging within the frame to be less compact.” Appeal Br. 24. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that it is well known in the art that electric generators comprise a rotor and stator to generate electricity and Dooley is cited for that purpose and would not require modification to Ress’s power generator. Ans. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 15 16. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 16 and 19 Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 19 is in error because Ress describes “a power device may be coupled to any shaft connecting a compressor to a turbine” and does not describe any portion of the power device is coupled to the compressor, much less a component including a winding of the power device is coupled to the compressor. Appeal Br. 25. Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s findings with respect to Ress in connection with the anticipation rejection of claim 8, we likewise find these arguments unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection over Ress for the same reasons. Claims 17 and 18 Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and 18 is in error for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claim 15. Appeal Br. 26. Because we are not persuaded of error as to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, we likewise affirm the rejection of claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 over the combination of Ress and Macchia as a group. Appeal Br. 26–29. Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 16 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Ress with Macchia fails to disclose “the electric generator surrounds the drive shaft” because “uncited portions of Macchia” would be considered by a skilled artisan in deciding whether to modify Ress’s power device. Appeal Br. 27–28. Appellant also argues that the Examiner did not explain why a skilled artisan would understand Ress’s power device rotor does not already act as a magnetic field circuit for generating an electrical current or rotating a shaft. Id. at 29. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Ress and Macchia because the Examiner relies on Macchia’s disclosure of an electric generator surrounding the drive shaft to the extent that it is not explicitly disclosed by Ress. Ans. 19. Moreover, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that it is common knowledge that typical power generators have a rotor and winding that generate a magnetic field circuit for generating an electrical current. Id. Claims 8, 11, 12, and 14 Appellant relies on the same arguments presented with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8. Appeal Brief 30. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error with respect to the anticipation rejection, we likewise do not find reversible error in the rejection of claims 8, 11, 12, and 14. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 17 Summary In summary, we reverse the rejection of claim 4 and affirm the Examiner’s remaining rejections of claims 1–3 and 5–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the above reasons. CONCLUSION For these reasons and those the Examiner provides, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lacking written description support, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14 as anticipated by Ress, and claims 1–3 and 5–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art. We reverse the rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons discussed herein. Appeal 2020-000784 Application 15/253,978 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 112(a) Written description 1–20 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14 102(a) Ress 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14 4 103 Ress, Coffinberry 4 7, 13 103 Ress, Veilleux 7, 13 15, 16, 19, 20 103 Ress, Dooley 15, 16, 19, 20 17, 18 103 Ress, Dooley, Veilleux 17, 18 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14 103 Ress, Macchia 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14 4 103 Ress, Macchia, Coffinberry 4 7, 13 103 Ress, Macchia, Veilleux 7, 13 Overall Outcome 1–20 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). AFFIRMED