Opinion ID: 2771246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ex Parte Reexamination

Text: Two anonymous requests for ex parte reexamination were filed on August 17, 2011, one seeking reexamination of claims 1-8 of the ’018 patent, and the other reexamina- 8 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. tion of claims 1-7 and 15-18 of the ’008 patent. Every substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ”) and ground for rejection in the requests relied on Tomofuji in combination with other references. Neither request provided an English translation of Tomofuji’s full text. Instead, the requests included the Abstract Translation and Tomofuji’s original Japanese text, with accompanying figures. They discussed Tomofuji using only these materials. On August 29, 2011, the examiner obtained the Ma- chine Translation of Tomofuji’s full text from the Japan Patent Office’s website, which he later acknowledged relying on throughout the proceedings. The examiner then found that both requests raised an SNQ as to all challenged claims and accordingly instituted an ex parte reexamination of each patent. The SNQ determination for the ’018 patent stated that an “English Translation [of Tomofuji] is provided herewith,” Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, Reexamination No. 90/011,864 (Sept. 8, 2011). The SNQ determination for the ’008 patent, which issued second, did not include this statement. The Machine Translation was not attached to either determination, and they do not otherwise directly reference Tomofuji’s full text. 1 Orbital did not challenge either SNQ determination. The examiner then issued Non-Final Rejections rejecting all claims under reexamination as obvious over Tomofuji in combination with other references. For sup- 1 Both SNQ determinations discuss Tomofuji by citing only to its figures. They name parts of the figures that the Abstract Translation does not define—the “housing 2,” “light sources 4,” and “cooling fan 21”—without explaining the names’ source. IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 9 port the examiner cited specific paragraphs of Tomofuji’s full text as well as its figures. 2 Orbital traversed all rejections. Its response in the ’018 patent’s reexamination “note[d] that the Office Action relies on paragraphs 0001 to 0006 for rejections and no translation of these paragraphs has been made available.” Orbital did not otherwise discuss the examiner’s use of Tomofuji’s full text. The examiner then issued a Final Rejection of all claims in both reexaminations. When discussing Tomofuji, he once again cited its full text and figures.