Interference No. 103,146
the argument that an actual reduction to practice of a type of
pacemaker lead could be shown by implantation of the lead onto
the heart of a living dog. In that case, the court stated:
"Such a barbed lead (be it two-barbed or cloverleaf, depending
on the Pacemaker witness) was never shown to have been
sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it would work for its
intended purpose of passively fixing a pacemaker lead within
the human heart." 611 F.Supp. at 1519, 227 USPQ at 523. The
court further stated that reduction to practice of a barbed or
tined lead must be
accomplished through implantation in the human heart. In the
footnote, the court said that because the pacemaker is
intended, designed, and marketed primarily, if not
exclusively, for the
therapeutic implantation in the human being, the intended
purpose of a tined endocardial lead contemplates passive
fixation within the human heart. Therefore, in this case, the
actual implantation involved, even though the device was
permanently implanted in the heart of a dog, was insufficient
to prove a
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007