Appeal No. 1999-1489
Application No. 08/691,193
rejections of the claims over Kosik were not in compliance with
35 U.S.C.
§ 132 because appellant was not furnished with an English
translation of Kosik’s German text, and thus could not judge the
propriety of continuing prosecution of the application.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 7(b), this Board’s jurisdiction with
respect to ex parte appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 is limited to
reviewing adverse decisions of examiners which relate, at least
indirectly, to matters involving the rejection of claims, i.e.,
to reviewing actions of examiners which in fact amount to a
rejection of claims. See In re Haas, 486 F.2d 1053, 1056, 179
USPQ 623, 624-26 (CCPA 1973). In the present case, appellant’s
argument does not concern a matter which was the basis for the
rejection of any claims, but rather questions the propriety of
the PTO’s long-established practice of not routinely providing a
translation of a cited foreign-language reference. This is a
procedural matter which we have no jurisdiction to consider;
instead, it should properly be raised by way of a petition to
the Commissioner under 37 CFR 1.181. Appellant’s argument can
therefore be given no consideration by us.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007