A machine translation of a foreign language reference may be deemed adequate evidence of the reference’s content for simple technologies with straightforward figures. Here, for example, a machine translation of a Japanese reference directed to lighting for marine habitats was found to be sufficient to support the examiner’s obviousness case. This would be a good case to consult and cite in response to a rejection based on an unclear translation of a foreign reference.
Background / Facts: The patent application on appeal here from rejection at the PTO is directed to lighting an open-top marine habitat using an LED lighting system. The primary reference is in Japanese with accompanying numbered figures. The PTO based its rejections on an English translation of its abstract and a machine translation of its full text provided by the Japanese Patent Office.
Issue(s): Whether the machine translation’s poor quality, untranslated words, and accuracy disclaimer render it insufficient evidence of the reference’s teaching to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Holding(s): No. Although sympathizing with the “concern about the dangers of relying on low-quality machine translations as evidence of the prior art,” the court distinguished this case from others “involving technologies more complex than the marine habitats at issue here.” “Without blessing the use of machine translations in all cases, we find that the Machine Translation used here provided adequate evidence of [the prior art’s] contents because of the simplicity of the technology and the teachings of [the prior art’s] figures. It was therefore sufficient to support the examiner’s obviousness case.”