F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). An
inventor must prove these elements by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id.
Weaver argues that Rowland has not met the first prong of
the Copper test, since Rowland has not introduced into evidence
the prototypes allegedly made by Vergano and Bell by 11 October
1991 (Paper 102 at 12). Weaver's argument is misplaced. It is
not necessary for Rowland to introduce into evidence the
prototypes. Rowland has submitted testimonial evidence of
inventors Vergano and Eddy and non-inventor Bell. As stated
above in connection with conception of the invention, Vergano,
Eddy and Bell testified as to the structure of the prototypes,
and that the structure meets every element of the count (Finding
18). Accordingly, Rowland has met the first prong of the Cooper
test. Weaver has failed to sufficiently demonstrate otherwise.
In order to determine if Rowland has met the second prong of
the Coooer test, we must first determine the intended purpose of
the subject matter of the count. Each of the apparatus claims
that constitute the count require a catheter for advancement
through an endoscope and into a body passage. Each of the method
claims that constitute the count requires positioning or
threading the catheter into a body passage. The purpose of
inserting the catheter into the body passage is to inject
contrast fluid, and/or to cut tissue. Thus, the intended purpose
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007