Interference No. 103,146
reduction to practice. Likewise, in Antoshkiw v. Pevsner, 224
USPQ 1049, 1051 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1983), it was held that
since there was no evidence in the record that the device was
tested in humans, let alone satisfactorily tested therein, the
evidence of merely making the device and testing it in dogs
was insufficient to establish an actual reduction to practice.
Accord Samson v. Crittenden, 14 USPQ2d 1810, 1814 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1990)(testing catheter in dog that did not contain
stenosis is not testing for the intended purpose, i.e.,
dilating stenosis in humans, and the testing therefore failed
to establish an actual reduction to practice).
Thus, it appears that the cases involving reduction
to practice of medical devices require testing of the medical
devices under actual use conditions with human subjects.
Accordingly, we disagree with the contention (Elson brief
at 12-13) of the senior party that flow bench testing of at
least one prototype conducted by Ms. Switzer in March 1981
establishes a reduction to practice of the invention.
Likewise, bench testing of the March prototype in comparison
to other similar commercial devices does not suffice as
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007