Ex Parte Carlson - Page 20


                 Appeal No.  2004-2317                                                         Page 20                   
                 Application No.  09/771,938                                                                             
                 plant produced by growing a seed of the corn variety I015036 has an SSR profile                         
                 which is the same as that shown in Table 6.  Therefore, it is unclear to this panel                     
                 why the examiner believes that such a disclosure fails to provide adequate                              
                 written descriptive support for the claimed invention.14  Accordingly, we are not                       
                 persuaded by the examiner’s argument.                                                                   
                        Regarding the isozyme typing profile, the examiner finds (Answer, page                           
                 18), “Table 7 provides names of loci where isozyme markers reside, for three                            
                 different corn plants, and a numerical value that represents the numbers of                             
                 alleles at isozyme loci types.  The nucleotide sequences that make up these loci                        
                 are not described.”  In response, appellant points out (Brief, page 26), the                            
                 isozyme “markers are well known and isozyme analysis in general [is] very well                          
                 known having been used for decades.”  In this regard, we remind the examiner                            
                 that the inquiry into whether the description requirement is met must be                                
                 determined on a case-by-case basis and is a question of fact.  In re Wertheim,                          
                 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976).  A description as filed is                              
                 presumed to be adequate; unless or until sufficient evidence or reasoning to the                        
                 contrary has been presented by the examiner to rebut the presumption.  See                              
                 e.g., In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).                                
                 The examiner, therefore, must have a reasonable basis to challenge the                                  
                 adequacy of the written description.  Accordingly, it is the examiner who has the                       
                 initial burden of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that a person                             
                                                                                                                         
                 14 We are not persuaded by the examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 28) “that the [commercially           
                 available] service used to detect SSR markers is currently available is not a guarantee that it will    
                 remain so for the life of a patent issuing from the application.”  Cf. In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378,   
                 1382, 161 USPQ 789, 792-3 (CCPA 1969).                                                                  





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007