Ex Parte Carlson - Page 33


                 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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007