Appeal No. 2006-1827
Application No. 09/941,383
one or more of six other references. Answer at 4, last ¶.
The examiner cites and relies on Koaizawa et al. (hereafter
Koaizawa), U.S. Patent 6,543,257, which issued Apr. 8, 2003,
from U.S. Application 09/545,673, filed April 7, 2000 (prior
art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)), as an English language
equivalent to Japan. Answer at 5.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-12, 38-43, 47 and 48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Japan
10 and one or more of six other references. Japan, a Japanese
patent publication published Feb. 15, 2000, is not written
in English. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
states that when an examiner seeks to rely upon a foreign
language document as prior art, “a translation must be
obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts
the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection.”
MPEP § 706.02(II)(8th ed. Rev.4, Oct., 2005). Further, the
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) generally
requires that parties relying upon a foreign language
20 document file “a translation of the document into English
and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
translation.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.154(b)(2004). No translation
of Japan has been provided to the Board with an accompanying
affidavit attesting to its accuracy.
-- 2 --
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007