more to the story than that conveyed by Chern. Yamada has not
presented a sufficient basis for us to find that the drawing and
the notes are not the work of Chern.
Yamada further argues that the record is unclear as to
whether the drawing and notes were actually attached to the
Invention Disclosure or even existed contemporaneously with the
Invention Disclosure (Paper 28 at 30). Yamada directs us to that
portion of the Invention Disclosure form (paragraph 3) that
states the following:
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE INVENTION: Attach complete
description, including drawings or sketches and articles
relevant to the invention. (Ex. 2002, R-11),
Yamada argues that below this statement is a space to list
or discuss any attachments that may be attached to the Invention
Disclosure form. Yamada points out that although all of the
other parts of the form are complete with handwritten entries,
there is nothing in the space provided below part 3. Yamada
submits that this lack of entry below part 3 indicates that, at
the time Wen-Foo Chern and Trent signed the Invention Disclosure
form, there were no attachments. The fact that Meza did not
receive a complete Tnvention Disclosure (Finding 41(g)-(i)),
Yamada argues, further indicates that the drawing and notes were
not originally attached to the Invention Disclosure form (Paper
28 at 31).
Yamada's arguments are not persuasive. First, and foremost,
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007