Appeal 2006-1675
Application 10/415,798
translation of the Japanese language patent document. Rather, the Examiner
relies on a computer (machine) translation of the Japanese document. A
review of the computer (machine) translation reveals that it is inadequate to
make the factual findings necessary for a full review of the issues on appeal.
If the Examiner maintains the rejection under § 103 after responding
to the § 112 concerns noted above, a verified translation of Futahashi must
be provided by the Examiner in response to this Remand.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this application is remanded to the Examiner for
appropriate action on the following:
1. to address and resolve on the written record of this application
whether the claim phrase “at most, only loosely twisted” refers to the
filament wires, the strand wire or both and whether the claim language
complies with the second paragraph requirements of § 112;
2. to address and resolve on the written record of this application
whether the amendments to the Specification, the claims and the drawing
comply with the written description requirement of the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112;
3. if the § 112 issues are resolved and the prior art rejection is
maintained, to interpret the claims on the written record consistent with
Office policy;
4. if the Examiner maintains the rejection under § 103 after
responding to the § 112 concerns noted above, to provide a full verified
translation of Futahashi; and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013