KALFAS et al. V. WEAVER et al. V. WEAVER et al. V. ROWLAND et al. - Page 11





            Weaver argues that Rowland has failed to prove a date of               
       conception prior to its January 31, 1994 filing date. Weaver                
       argues that none of Rowland's declarants compare the elements of            
       the count with the elements of the proofs (Paper 102). We                   
       disagree. Rowland has proved conception by at least 11 October              
       1991. At that time, the inventors built a prototype of the                  
       three-lumen catheter. Inventors Vergano and Eddy testified to               
       this, along with noninventor Bell, who assisted in building the             
       prototypes (Finding 17).                                                    
            Verganc, Eddy and Bell testified in detail that the                    
       prototypes built were as shown in Rowland's parent patent which             
       shows the elements of a three-lumen catheter having a lumen for a           
       cutting instrument, a lumen for contrasting fluid, and a lumen              
       for a guide wire (Finding 18). The figures that the declarants              
       direct us to show three separate lumens as recited in the count.            
       Weaver does not challenge the inventors' or Ms. Bell's testimony.           
       Weaver did not cross-examine any of the Rowland declarants.                 
       Thus, Rowland has established a prior conception by 11 October              
       1991.                                                                       
            "In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the            

       inventor must prove that: (1) he constructed an embodiment or               
       performed a process that met all the limitations of the                     
       interference count; and (2) he determined that the invention                
       would work for its intended purpose." Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154               


                                       11                                          






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007