Appeal No. 96-0236
Application 08/187,364
Appellant's complaint (Supplemental Reply Brief at 1) that a
copy of the Hoshino translation did not accompany the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer, a copy was sent to Appellant
(paper No. 20), who did not file a response. With respect to
Hoshino, we will rely on the English-language abstract and
full translation. However, we will not rely on the Fuse U.S.
patent, because it is not cited in the statement of the
rejection, as is necessary for it to be considered in
connection with the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Furthermore, it
does not directly correspond to the Fuse Japanese patent and
thus cannot be considered to be an English-language
translation thereof (e.g., Fuse U.S. has twelve figures; Fuse
Japan has only seven). Fuse U.S. apparently combines the
disclosures of the Fuse Japanese reference and another Fuse
Japanese application, both of which are identified in Fuse
U.S. as priority applications.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hoshino in view of Kuijk.
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over
Hoshino in view of Kuijk and Fuse.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007