Interference No. 104,290
livers was first targeted, the apparatus used and the target area
inspected to compare the actual ablation accomplished to that
ablation desired in the targeted area.
Next, there is no convincing evidence that the experi
ments were considered successful. Discounting conclusory state
ments from Fox, LeVeen and Kilzer made years after the experi
ments were undertaken, no standards for success were ever
established and no contemporaneous recognition of success can be
found in the records. Indeed, the grant proposal indicates the
results were preliminary, and testimony and the grant proposal
indicates the experiments were merely exploratory in nature.
Thirdly, the invention was not tested in its intended
functional setting, so the inventors did not determine that it
would work for its intended purpose. The claimed subject matter
was tested in an explanted liver in repose on an electrode plate.
Credible testimony establishes that such experimental conditions
do not simulate the impedance of the body of a patient, the
movement of the organs in a patient under surgical conditions, or
the heat-sink/cooling effect of blood flow of a living organism,
34
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007