evaluated was the same as the device of the subject matter of the
count, or that the device evaluated was used in a patient. On
the evaluation form, there is no description of the elements of
the count. However, the evaluation form is entitled "Ultratome
XL' Evaluation", and two of the Rowland inventors testified that
the three-lumen catheter sphincterotome device (that was
conceived) was given the name Ultratome XL (Finding 29). Thus,
it would appear that Rowland has sufficiently demonstrated that
the evaluation form was for evaluating the subject matter of the
count. However, the Rowland inventors were working on at least
one other three-lumen catheter, known as the balloonotome. The
Rowland inventors were working on both the balloonotome catheter
and the sphincterotome catheter at the same time. Initially, the
project of developing the three-lumen balloonotome catheter and
the three-lumen sphincterotome catheter were referred to as the
"Balloonotome Project" (RR 005, $ 7). It is not apparent then
that only the three-lumen sphincterotome was given the name
"Ultratome XL." Furthermore, there is no corroborating evidence
that the name Ultratome XL meant the device defined by the count.
Rowland has submitted only the inventor's testimony in that
respect.
Lastly, there is nothing on the evaluation form that
indicates that the apparatus as defined by the count was actually
tested for its intended purpose, e.g., to be inserted in a body
23
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007