tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post5640201693753403599..comments2024-02-27T09:18:36.160+01:00Comments on DeltaPatents Case Law blog: T 655/13 - The board does not speak JapaneseDeltaPatentshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07830354704918972593noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-37115129791779944602023-12-23T20:06:04.281+01:002023-12-23T20:06:04.281+01:00Greaat shareGreaat shareMBE Thinkshttps://mbethinks.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-37700302123410723722018-06-28T08:56:25.622+02:002018-06-28T08:56:25.622+02:00I think you are too paranoid in your interpretatio...I think you are too paranoid in your interpretation of the GL. I interpret 'relies' as 'relies for making a reasoned statement'.<br /><br />Exceptions aside, I can hardly imagine that any reliance on a document not in any of the official EPO languages can be considered 'reasoned'.<br /><br />Don't forget: The GL are not law, only internal EPO working instructions. Neither the applicant nor the BoA is bound by them.Patenthuishttps://www.patenthuis.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-13452127754581065232018-06-27T14:07:23.981+02:002018-06-27T14:07:23.981+02:00I think in practice the EPO will provide a transla...I think in practice the EPO will provide a translation if you need it. These days that may be a machine translation though (G-IV-4.1). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8990057754240336385.post-45405007671192137192018-06-26T15:21:03.779+02:002018-06-26T15:21:03.779+02:00Guidelines B-X, 9.1.3:
If the original document i...Guidelines B-X, 9.1.3:<br /><br />If the original document is in a less "accessible" language (e.g. Chinese or Russian), it is best to cite the abstract. In some cases it is possible to obtain an automated translation of certain patent documents into an official language of the EPO. If the examiner relies on this translation in the search opinion, he should send it to the applicant by annexing a copy of the automated translation to the search opinion (see B‑X, 12, and G‑IV, 4).<br /><br />The last sentence seems to mean "if an Exzaminer is fluent in Japanese, he can just cite the Japanese document and does not need to provide a translation of it to the applicant."<br /><br />So, an applicant is not entitled to a translation whereas the Board -according to this decision- is?<br />Or can I understand the reasoning of this decision also to be applicable to the applicant, i.e. is his right to be heard violated if he does not get a translation of a Japanese prior art document that the examiner bases his pertinent objection on?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com