Ex Parte McGregor

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 20, 2006

10319185 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 20, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES RAY MCGREGOR
____________

Appeal 2006-1680
Application 10/319,185
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: September 20, 2006
____________

Before GARRIS, PAK, and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

ORDER REMANDING TO THE EXAMINER
The above identified application is hereby remanded to the Examiner,
for the reasons set forth below.
The Examiner has advanced on this appeal a § 103(a) rejection over
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17 over Schmidt (US 6,481,183) in view
of Yano (JP 3-240650).

Appeal 2006-1680
Application 10/319,185

We find no translation of the Japanese document in the image file
wrapper (IFW) record of the Patent & Trademark Office. Moreover,
Appellant indicates that he has no translation of this Japanese document (Br.
5). A translation is required in order to meaningfully assess the merits of the
Examiner's § 103 rejection.
Therefore, in response to this remand, the Examiner must perform the
following: (1) obtain an English language translation of the Japanese
document (i.e., JP 3-240650), (2) issue a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
discussing how the translation supports his § 103 rejection of the claims
(i.e., if the Examiner, after reviewing the translation, decides to maintain his
rejection), and (3) provide Appellant with a copy of the translation attached
to the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer whereby Appellant will have an
opportunity to fully and meaningfully respond to the Examiner’s rejection.

CONCLUSION
In summary, we have remanded the application to the Examiner for
action consistent with our comments above.
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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
2
Appeal 2006-1680
Application 10/319,185

consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) applies if
a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer is written in response to this remand by
the Board.

REMANDED

cam

Herman H. Bains
6101 Tracy Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55436

3