| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#value | - We simply hold that the district court may properly consider a variety of factors, such as an individual's position within the company, role in developing or marketing the patented idea, contact with the inventors or prosecutors, and representations to the PTO in deciding whether that individual is "substantively involved within the meaning of ?? 1.56(c)(3) and thus owes a duty of candor to the P
|
