both Chern and Trent testify that when they signed the Invention
Disclosure, the drawing and notes were attached to the form
(Findings 30-35). That there were no handwritten entries below
part 3 on the form is not an indication that something was not
attached. The other parts of the form end in a colon (:), or
question mark (?), or ask for'an entry to be made (Please
identify related invention disclosures ... ). Unlike all of the
other parts of the form that invite entry of notes, the third
part ends with a period. There is no invitation to provide
comments below part 3. Part 3 asks the reader to attach, not
describe, drawings, descriptions, etc. All indicating that no
entry was required.
Meza testifies that the Invention Disclosure Was incomplete
(Ex. 2011, 1 7). Meza does not indicate why the Invention
Disclosure was incomplete. Thus, Yamada is guessing that the
drawing and notes were not attached to the Invention Disclosure
form when it was sent to Meza. Even if the drawing and notes
were not attached at the time Meza received the Invention
Disclosure, that does not negate the fact that both Chern and
Trent testified that the drawing and notes were attached at the
time Trent signed the Invention Disclosure on I August 1991.
For the reasons given above, Chern has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that it conceived of the invention
of the count at least by 1 August 1991, which is prior to
Yamada's effective filing date of 9 December 1991. Yamada has
23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007