Draft proofing

Draft proofing The process of filling in air gaps around a structure to reduce the rate of air interchange. 

Provide good draft-proofing strip around the door and operable window frames, leaving sufficient fresh air ingress for any combustion appliances. 

The draft proof test plan and the calculation results must also be part of the package. All input variables used to perform the calculation must be... 

Special thanks are due to the patience and determination of the contributors who tirelessly prepared drafts and redrafts, attended meetings and more meetings, and reviewed proofs, more proofs, and then the final proofs. It has been a pleasure to work with all members of the professional team at Academic Press toward the common goal of publishing this book on schedule. 

By following the Goof-Proof Rules for writing a rough draft, you will end up with a piece of writing that you can polish into final form and attach to your application with confidence. 

I am most grateful for help I have received from many quarters in writing this book. Over the years students in the course have offered much valuable criticism and advice. In checking the final draft and the proofs I have had very welcome and efficient assistance from Dr. A. B. Blake and Messrs. R. C. Elder, T. E. Haas, and J. T. Mague. I, of course assume sole responsibility for all remaining errors. Finally, I wish to thank Mrs. Nancy Blake for expert secretarial assistance. 

Here is one example of that. The court interpreted certain publication details of the original version of the Rudolf expert report used by Remer in his version as well as of the version without comments published by me a few months later as proof that Remer s distribution activities of his version and the subsequent publication of my authorized version were one single operation planned in advance. As one of the main proofs for this the court pointed to the fact that in the draft of my expert report produced in November 1992 (version F2), Prof. R. Fau-risson had not been mentioned in the acknowledgements at the end of the report. He had first been expressly thanked in the authorized version of my expert report published in July 1993 on the inner cover. According to the Court, this allegedly proves that the authorized version was planned already in November 1992 (decision, pp. 93, 208ff... 

There are four steps to writing a paper. The first step is to write a first draft. To do this, you must follow an outline and disregard style. The nest two steps should be performed at the same time. One of these steps is to consider the structure. You must correct flaws in logic and gaps between main points. The other step is to address the audience. You should explain novel terms adequately and support bold statements. The final step is to proof the paper for grammar, punctuation, and style. It is a good idea to have someone else do this for you, since you may not notice such surface details. 

A second exception in the USA which influences the effective priority date of an invention (but not the official priority of the patent ) is the so-called swearing-back according to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37 (37 CFR, 1.131). If there is an interference with other patents or patent applications, the US patent authority will ask the applicant of USA-derived inventions to provide detailed information on the actual time of conception of the invention, reduction to practice and on all further steps which finally led to the current application. Proof of those activities can be provided by laboratory notebooks and other relevant documents, e.g. those which prove the involvement of a patent attorney during the process of drafting and filing the application in question. This information will be considered in order to assess the effective time when the invention was made and when it was reduced to practice in order to fulfil the requirements for patentability. 

T. Hayashi provided some invaluable comments on our draft. S. P. Neo and M. Zhou assisted in the calculations of some structural data. Efforts from B. H. Aw, H. K. Lee and P. M. N. Low in the proof-reading are gratefully acknowledged. This manuscript could not have been completed without the selfless and tireless effort of Y. P. Leong on the figures, data compilation and stenographic work. 

The first draft of this book was prepared at Hopkins Marine Biology Laboratory of Stanford University, Pacific Grove, in August 2001, thanks to the hospitality of George Somero. The book was written in the congenial atmosphere of the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, where it was completed in July 2003. Two notes were added in proof in early November 2003. 

As usual, my personal thanks go out to my wife, Carrie, and my not-so-small-any-longer children, Mike the computer wizard, and Stef the violin virtuoso, for letting me make my usual mess of things with drafts and proofs and models and journals all over the place. You can all have the house back now, at least for a couple of years. 

That day Hahn and Strassmann had finished the actinium-lanthanum experiment—and confirmed lanthanum from barium decay. In the late evening, after they turned off their counters, Hahn wrote his exiled colleague again. The paper was not yet finished a phrase from the letter would be reworked to more cautious language for the final draft Our radium proofs convince us that as chemists we must come to the conclusion that the three carefully-studied isotopes are not radium, but, from the standpoint of the chemist, barium. ... 

---