Ex parte SAITO et al. - Page 3





                 Appeal No. 1997-2387                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/082,373                                                                                                             



                          The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                                 

                 Bernoco et al.  (Bernoco)                             4,148,607                  Apr. 10, 1979                                         
                 Forrest                                               4,438,068                  Mar. 20, 1984                                         
                 Chagnon et al.  (Chagnon)                    4,628.037                  Dec.   9, 1986                                                 
                 Sakuma                                                4,770,855                  Sep. 13, 1988                                         

                 Japanese Patent Applications                                                                                                           
                                               3                                                                                                        
                 Japan Kokai  (JP '161)                       59-1951161                          Nov.   6, 1984                                        
                                                      4                                                                                                 
                 Japan (Takahashi abstract)                   4-369477A                  Dec. 22, 1992                                                  

                          An additional reference relied on by appellants (brief, p. 13) is:                                                            

                 Eur. Patent Application                               030 087                    Jun. 10, 1981                                         











                          3We refer to the English language translation prepared by the United States Patent and Trademark                              
                 Office in April 1991 and supplied to appellants with the examiner's supplemental answer.                                               
                          4At page 3 of the answer, the examiner lists "3-173093 TAKAHASHI (Japan) 12-1992" as the "prior                               
                 art of record relied upon in the rejection of the claims under appeal."  While, it appears that the examiner is                        
                 relying on the actual Japanese document, we cannot find an English language translation of this document                               
                 in this record.  Rather, what we find is an English abstract.  Thus, it appears that the examiner and                                  
                 appellants have been relying upon the English abstract.  Consequently, our decision is also based on a                                 
                 consideration of the English abstract.                                                                                                 
                          Upon return of the application, the examiner should clarify the record as to what evidence of                                 
                 obviousness is relied upon in support of the prior art rejections of record.  Furthermore, when relying on non-                        
                 English documents as evidence of obviousness, a full translation should always be used when readily                                    
                 available.  See In re Meinhardt, 392 F.2d 273, 280, 157 USPQ 270, 275 (CCPA 1968) ("...it is proper for the                            
                 court and necessarily, the board, to consider everything that a reference discloses.").                                                
                          Finally, the examiner stated "that since claim 7 now recites a flat bottomed well, which was not                              
                 disclosed in the parent application or the translated priority documents, it receives ... [a] June 28, 1993                            
                 [filing date]" (answer, p. 8, para. 1).  Thus, the Takahashi abstract qualifies as prior art against claim 7.                          
                                                                         - 3 -                                                                          






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007