Interference No. 104,290
thereof, that simply increasing power would have generated an
ablation volume between the electrodes without adverse conse
quence to surrounding tissue. EX-5153, 9113.
We further note that at the time of the alleged reduc
tions to practice, the prior art found it difficult to properly
heat tumors sufficiently, and that tumors tended to become
thermoresistant if they survived early treatment. LX-1146 at 20.
This is another reason that testing in vivo to insure a correctly
elevated temperature would appear necessary to establish a
reduction to practice.
LeVeen also recognized that single needle ablation had
exhibited problems with charring and gas formation. LX-1146 at
21. LeVeen states in the grant proposal" that an array of
needles would ablate a nearly spherical area of tissue and avoid
charring,, carbonization and gas formation. Td. Thus, LeVeen
admits that the subject matter of the interference is intended to
be qualitatively different from the prior art. The multiple
needle array is not just an extrapolation of the single needle
" LeVeen filed a grant proposal to request additional
funding to continue tests on the invention. The proposal is
LX-1146.
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007