record in light of arguments made in his "unopposed" principal
brief to determine whether Chang has met his burden of proof.
B. Priority facts
1. Chang had an idea with respect to a heated element
to be used in conjunction with a computer, i.e., a computer
keyboard or "mouse" containing a heating element to keep the
user's hands warm.
2. In connection with his idea, Chang hired patent
attorney Newhouse on 24 October 1996 (Affidavit, ¶ 18).
3. In due course, Newhouse prepared, or caused to be
prepared, a draft patent application.
4. One version of a draft patent application
(Ex 2024) was sent by Newhouse to Chang on 6 December 1996
(Affidavit, ¶ 19).
5. The draft contains an enabled description of an
embodiment within the scope of the count (Ex 2024, see discussion
concerning Figure 3 on pages 5-6, particularly when considered in
light of the draft specification and drawings, as a whole).
6. Chang "immediately reviewed and edited" the
draft patent application prepared by Newhouse and returned an
edited version of the patent application (Ex 2025) to Newhouse
(Affidavit, ¶ 22).
7. During a telephone conversation on 18 December
1996, Chang and Newhouse discussed adding "a forced air
embodiment" to the patent application (Affidavit, ¶ 22).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007