object to the evidence submitted by Chern. Furthermore, Yamada
did not cross examine Wen-Foo Chern or Trent. Based on the
record before us, Yamada has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that the facts presented by Chern are inaccurate.
Yamada further argues that the "third note" of the
handwritten notes attached to the Invention Disclosure form (Ex.
2002, R-14) does not describe and is contradictory to what is
shown in the "first circuit diagram" (Paper 28 at 17). Yamada
fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the third note refers to
the "first circuit diagram". Part of the "third note" is a block
circuit diagram with annotations that are referenced in the
handwritten notes. The same annotations do not appear in the
"first circuit diagram". Accordingly, a more reasonable
interpretation of the "third note" is that it refers to that
circuit that is part of the "third note" and not the "first
circuit diagram". Yamada has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
otherwise.
Yamada makes several additional arguments regarding (1) the
other circuits on the drawing, (2) the handwritten notes on the
drawing, (3) the handwritten notes attached to the Invention
Disclosure form and, (4) the handwritten notes made on the
Invention Disclosure form. Essentially, Yamada argues that the
information provided for in items 1-4 is inaccurate, incomplete,
inconsistent, and fails to describe the count (Paper 28 at 7-22).
The additional arguments made by Yamada regarding items (1)
18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007