Page 40 - T-I JOURNAL19 4

688 MERCIER, RANJIT & REARDON

METHODS the original invention disclosure submission. One
example to highlight the distinction might occur
Collection of Information when an idea or technology continued to be refined
OTM collected invention data, patent data, and by the creator group and a new individual not on
affiliated faculty information from a relational data- the original invention disclosure was added after
base developed by Knowledge Sharing Systems called the original patent filing. While he or she was not an
TechTracS (KSS). The internal database housed OTM- original creator, the database records were updated
specific data, including linkages of individuals to to include this inventor as a creator on the original
submitted invention disclosures and to patent appli- record. Another example might occur when a patent
cations. Specifically, for individuals, the identifying attorney assessed the idea or technology for inventor-
information in KSS included the name, title, school ship on the patent application. At times, the attorney
affiliation, and gender, and this information tied to may find that an individual creator has not made
both invention disclosures and patent information. an inventive contribution to the idea or technology.
Creators and Inventors Therefore, this individual would not be listed on the
KSS records creator and inventor information. patent application and would not be an inventor, but
this individual would remain a creator. In brief, all
These terms are separately described and used. inventors were listed as creators, but not all creators
A creator was the term used to describe an individ- were listed as inventors.
ual or individuals who submit an idea or a technology
through an invention disclosure form to the OTM. Gender Identity
Identifying information of a creator was requested
in the invention disclosure form and thus collected As described, a creator self-identifies name, title,
during submission to OTM. This identifying infor- department, and school at the time of submitting an
mation included the creator’s name, title, associated invention disclosure. However, gender information
department, and primary university affiliation at a was not requested on the WUSTL OTM invention
given snapshot in time. A single invention disclosure disclosure form. In order to obtain gender identity
often included multiple creators with differing roles information, multiple methods were used. First, pre-
(e.g., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, viously populated information in the KSS database
or staff). Each invention disclosure was entered as a was obtained by selecting the subset of individuals
separate technology record and was linked back to that had generated invention disclosures and patents
the individual creator’s record, which recorded the and determining if gender had already been identi-
creator’s identifying information at that specific point fied. If the identifying information was not already
in time. Over time, a creator within the database in the database, then the list of creators and inventors
could be related to multiple invention disclosure sub- was provided to the department of human resources
missions, with their identifying information on any (HR) at WUSTL in order to obtain gender identity
subsequent invention disclosures also providing the as well as any additional identifying information that
information at the point in time that such subsequent was not provided in the original invention disclosure.
disclosures were made. As such, the database allowed WUSTL HR matched the information from the pro-
OTM to track the original identifying information as vided list to their central database and returned the
well as temporal changes in an individual’s identifying identifying information matched to gender for most
information. individuals.
OTM reserved the definition of an inventor as In a small subset of individuals who were no
the actual legal definition used by patent attorneys. longer at the university, WUSTL HR did not have
An inventor was the term used to describe an indi- the identifying data. In this circumstance, we used
vidual who has been listed on a patent application multiple confirmatory sources, including LinkedIn,
or an issued patent. Individuals listed on a patent lab research pages, requests to faculty lab heads, and
application originating from an invention disclo- other publicly available information to accurately
sure may or may not be the same as those listed on determine the gender of the individual.