taken from him how he was misinformed about the law of that and how you became more appreciative of the law and that's what we're here that's what we're trying to get resolved so i'm going to continue with my script here and i'm happy to nine week therapy session for the dog over nine weeks and he did eight hundred ninety five dollars for the us to understand why or here you're asking us to act like  applications it was found first i gather that the idea of resolving this debate through some sort of dried invention is not available or what are you asking happened here she gave an idea she said that had one you try figure eight and he did that and so we don't believe he doesn't believe and that's why we're here he doesn't that believe that rises to the high level of being in the inventor the just the mere suggestion suggestion of an idea that was freely give it freely give the idea just because you give an idea doesn't it or shouldn't provide you a higher status of being an inventor particularly she had nothing to do with the reduction contract and then somehow that's going to affect the quality of an event or either you're an investor and you're not a good measure so what you know the question before the court is what is the inventor that that's what we're trying to diss that's what we're trying to se of his invention has a chilling effect on the free flow of ideas suggestion you're my friend you my consultant somebody i think i can trust you know can you help me solve the problem well if we don't declare him to be the inventor i have to tell them all my clients and the contemplated a business relationship but it quickly soured should lawyer up that twenty one document formation agreements all these things that spooked or he came and saw me and said what am i going to do i was plain to me what happen and so he can he did that he went and tried it and through trial and error building different prototypes eventually changed actually duction the practice that's what happened and so they filed in october a couple months prior they filed a joint application together and they both swore that they were joint ventures there are there lay people they don't know the law in better shape it seemed reasonable to them that the time based on their limited understanding of the law again mr brown of came into my office there's a problem here oh god what if you know he told me the story and i told him that there's this case more to the porter cited in the are ok or we need to make a safe harbor and say hey if you're an inventor and somebody freely gives you an idea you could incorporate it into your venture and that's how most inventions you made people don't think of every single limitation of their claims they always are taking other ideas from other people that's that's that's the essence of the engine is creating something new and you're always borrowing you know from the things that are out there and that's exactly hear from the other side and we'll save the rest of your time ok obligated to conduct an analysis but hear the obvious had the office had compelling evidence which mr very often himself brought to the attention of the office he'll learned to the office during prosecution of an identical application when the office that the office is not preferring one inventor over the other and the office is saying that the inventor ship was not correct when filed in violation of wanted to ask which requires that states that the only be and the true flagging of the p t o to the other applications he himself admitted that he wasn't the correct inventor and i mean the p t o there is an inventor ship correction which could take place if that was what he wanted to do the p t o isn't derivation proceedings and there could have been you know the office could have gone that route but here it wasn't a question of deciding the priority the question was that based on the staff provided by mr they could have added her correct and he did in fact when he originally filed his application he did after they filed declarations stating that they were both inventors you know they filed its application together eems to me that it's very curious just to reject an application for having the wrong inventor without doing anything to ascertain how with or not we know that people can make declaring and interference not saying i reject your application right but the panic case also talks about invalidity under wanted to ask because determining if someone is a sole or joint inventor so this this is is slightly different procedure where it is talking about actually said that the vendors might be drawn to inventors but that wasn't what they were determining they were determining the interference proceeding so the morris case also doesn't stand for the present proposition that if you maintain intellectual domination you are guaranteed to be a sole inventor it only says they're maintaining intellectual domination may lead to you know depending on the facts and here the board found that mr merah didn't m inventors and that's that that was their understanding later a couple months later mr rove who had control that application and then in that application and fathers on applications was december sixteenth date believe that this you know more sleep order and not controlling on this court but it was a wise decision and it is very analogous to this case in fact we think the fact that it is this most similar to this case and in that case you had a and there's no remedy for it because under that long online copyright law both inventors are free to exploit and commercialize the investor so it's important to him that he be the sole inventor so that that's kind of why we're here and we think that th