Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, we cannot sustain any of the
examiner's rejections based on the first and second paragraphs of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
B. The Rejections over Nishiyama
The examiner sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of
law based on Nishiyama on pages 8-10 of the Answer. Appellants do
not challenge either the examiner's factual findings or conclusions
of law. The only argument concerning Nishiyama presented by
appellants is that Nishiyama is not "prior art," and appellants
rely on their priority date to overcome this reference (Brief,
pages 6-7). This argument is not well taken since appellants have
not filed a certified translation of their foreign priority
document and thus are not entitled to their priority date of Apr.
17, 1993. See the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP),
§ 201.15, 7th ed., Rev. 1, Feb. 2000. It is noted that the
effective U. S. filing date of Nishiyama is July 16, 1993, but we
see no relevance, and appellants have not explained the relevance,
of the submission of a translation of Nishiyama's earliest foreign
priority document (Brief, page 7).
The examiner has combined Chebi with Nishiyama in the
rejection of claim 31 for the teaching in Chebi that microwave
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007