Page 2
Appeal Number: 2006-1122
Application Number: 10/237,089
In order to properly review the rejection, it is of the utmost importance to have an English
translation that reflects what is said in the original foreign document. Without such a translation,
we cannot determine whether the underlying evidence supports the rejection. The computer-
generated translation falls short. A translation that reflects the disclosure of the original Japanese
document using proper English is required before we can review the rejection on appeal.
Once a proper translation is obtained, the Examiner should further consider the rejection and
write a supplemental examiner’s answer if appropriate. Whether or not a supplemental examiner’s
answer is written, Appellants should be provided with an opportunity to respond to the new
evidence.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (effective September 13,
2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) is
made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) applies if a
supplemental examiner's answer is written in response to this remand by the Board.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR ' 1.136(a)(1)(iv)( 2004).
REMANDED
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CATHERINE TIMM ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CT/sld
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007