Drawings alone may provide a written description of an invention
as 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935
F.2d 1555, 1565, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If
drawings alone are sufficient to satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, T 1, then obviously certain
drawings do not need further explanation.
Yamada additionally argues that (1) there is no indication
that the drawing was attached to the Invention Disclosure form
(Paper 28 at 9), and (2) the drawing is unsigned and not
witnessed (Paper 28 at 11).
Apparently, Yamada is challenging the authenticity of the
drawing'. Chern has provided the declarations of Wen-Foo Chern
and Trent to establish that Wen-Foo Chern made the drawing and
that the drawing was attached to the Invention Disclosure form
that both Wen-Foo Chern and Trent signed (Findings 30-35).
Chern, then has sufficiently authenticated the drawing for it to
be admissible in evidence.
During an interference, a party is given an opportunity to
object to the admissibility of an opposing parties evidence
(Paper 1, Notice Declaring Interference, T 33). Yamada did not
8 F.R.E. 901(a) sets out the general rule for
authentication:
The requirement of authentication or identification as
a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the'matter in
question is what its proponent claims.
- 17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007