Appeal No. 2004-2317 Page 33 Application No. 09/771,938 In this regard, we note that the burden of proof does not shift to appellant until the examiner first meets his burden. Marzocchi, 439 F.2d at 223-224, 169 USPQ at 369-370. We also recognize the examiner’s assertion (Answer, pages 40-41) that claims 27-29 “encompass plants with single loci whose functions are unknown,” or where the effects of expression of the single locus on the traits expressed by I015036 are unknown. While this may be true, the examiner has not provided any evidence to suggest that it would require undue experimentation to obtain a single locus converted plant wherein essentially all of the desired morphological and physiological characteristics of an inbred are recovered in addition to the characteristics conferred by the single locus transferred into the inbred via the backcrossing technique. See specification, page 23. While it is not expressly stated in the text of the examiner’s rejection, it may be that the examiner is concerned that the claims include inoperative embodiments. If so, the examiner is directed to Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576-77, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984): Even if some of the claimed combinations were inoperative, the claims are not necessarily invalid. “It is not a function of the claims to specifically exclude ... possible inoperative substances....” In re Dinh-Nguyen, 492 F.2d 856, 859-59, 181 USPQ 46, 48 (CCPA 1974)(emphasis omitted). Accord, In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1265, 180 USPQ 789, 793 (CCPA 1974); In re Anderson, 471 F.2d 1237, 1242, 176 USPQ 331, 334-35 (CCPA 1971). Of course, if the number of inoperative combinations becomes significant, and in effect forces one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed invention, the claims might indeed be invalid. See e.g., In re Cook, 439 F.2d 730, 735, 169 USPQ 298, 302 (CCPA 1971).Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007