court did not fo cus on the wire support feature of claims 5 and 9 and did not completely address the thermal compression bonding feature of claims 4 and 8. Without the fact-finder distinguishing between the direct bonding and wire support features, we are unable to discern from the current record whether Gustafson is entitled to co-inventor status. Consequently, we vacate the district court’s holding that Gustafson is not entitled to co-inventor status of the ’855 patent and remand the case to the district court for a determination of whether Hadden or Zirbes first conceived of the wire support feature of claims 5 and 9 or whether Gus-tafson sufficiently contributed to the conception of claims 5 and 9 to be deemed a co-inventor. See Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1465-66, 45 USPQ2d at 1552 (<HOLDING>). The district court should further determine
holding that defendant who conclusively negates at least one essential element of plaintiffs cause of action entitled to summary judgment holding a coinventor of at least one claim is entitled to a pro rata undivided interest in the entire patent holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if holding that rule 58 allows inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the courts reasoning holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement