Appeal No. 2006-0849 Παγε 2
Application No. 09/945,764
There are two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) that have been appealed by
appellant, both of which rely on Tomiya et al. (Tomiya), Japanese application no. 10-
147075, published on June 2, 1998, as a primary reference (Answer, pages 3 and 5). The
examiner relies on both the “Abstract and English translation” of Tomiya as the primary
evidence of obviousness (id.). However, the “Abstract” is clearly not a complete
description of Tomiya. Furthermore, the “translation” is a “document [that] has been
translated by computer” where the “translation may not reflect the original precisely” and
the “Japan Patent Office is not responsible for any damages caused by the use of this
translation” (unnumbered page 1). This computer translation is incomprehensible (e.g.,
see claim 1 on unnumbered page 1 of the translation). Although appellant has submitted a
partial translation of Tomiya (Reply Brief, Exhibit G, translation of ¶[0065] through ¶[0072]),
this partial translation still does not complete the record in this appeal.
Therefore this application is remanded to the jurisdiction of the examiner to ensure
that the record is complete, i.e., to enter a full, comprehensible English translation of
Tomiya into the record.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007