Ex Parte Anelli et al - Page 4


               Appeal No. 2006-2378                                                                           Page 4                   
               Application No. 10/433,388                                                                                              

               2.  Obviousness                                                                                                         
                       The examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of                                   
               WO 00/29372 (“WO ‘372”),1 Japanese Patent Document 10-251211 (“JP ‘211”)2 and                                           
               Nordal.3                                                                                                                
                       As an initial matter, we note that a translation of the JP ‘211 document was not                                
               made of record until after the Appeal Brief was filed.4  MPEP § 706.02 addresses the                                    
               use of non-English language documents in rejections, stating in relevant part (emphasis                                 
               added) that “[i]f the document is in a language other than English and the examiner                                     
               seeks to rely on that document, a translation must be obtained so that the record is                                    
               clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection.”                                
                       The examiner’s delay in obtaining a translation of JP ‘211 directly contravenes                                 
               MPEP § 706.02.  Moreover, because of the late entry of the translation into the record,                                 
               Appellants did not have an opportunity to evaluate the translation before filing this                                   
               appeal.  However, in view of the decision herein, we do not consider the failure to timely                              
               present the translation prejudicial to Appellants.                                                                      
                       In rejecting the claims as being obvious over the cited references, the examiner                                
               acknowledged that “the difference between [WO ‘372] and herein claimed process is the                                   
               order of the reaction.  In the claimed process [the] nitro group is first reduced to amino                              
               and then amidated as against, in the reference, amidation takes [place] first followed by                               
               the reduction of nitro to the amino group.”  Answer, page 3.  The examiner concluded                                    
                                                                                                                                       
               1 Parady et al., WO 00/29372, published May 25, 2000.                                                                   
               2 Suzuki et al., JP 10-251211, published September 22, 1998.                                                            
               3 Nordal et al., U.S. Patent 4,250,113, issued February 10, 1981.                                                       
               4 The machine translation of JP ‘211 has a document date of April 6, 2006, but is incorrectly indexed in                
               the electronic file as “Examiner’s search strategy and results.”  The Appeal Brief filing date is January 30,           
               2006.                                                                                                                   





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007