v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 1273, 226 USPQ 224, 225-226 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Rowland argues that it resumed activity when it sent
three-lumen catheters to various doctors for evaluation and that
it was diligent towards actually reducing the invention to
practice by 8 February 1994 (Paper 108 at 20). For the reasons
given infra, we are not persuaded that Rowland has demonstrated
an 8 February 1994 reduction to practice or diligence prior to
Weaver's entry into the field until 8 February 1994.
Rowland lastly argues that it publicly disclosed its
invention, thereby negating a charge that Rowland suppressed its
invention from the public. Rowland argues that the public
acquired the benefit of its invention when it sent three-lumen
catheters to various doctors prior to Weaver's entrance into the
field (Paper 108 at 20). Rowland alleges that it sent three
lumen catheter devices, along with a letter explaining the
features of the device to various doctors. However, insufficient
evidence supports that assertion. Inventor Rowland's testimony
that the various three-lumen devices were sent to various doctors
is not sufficiently corroborated. The letter to Dr. Bohorfoush,
that Rowland apparently relies on as an example of the type of
letter sent to the various doctors, does not demonstrate that
several letters and three-lumen catheter devices were sent to
various physicians. Furthermore, the letter to Dr. Bohorfoush
indicates that the enclosed product is "CONFIDENTIAL and for your
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007