Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 201 - 220
of 9,502
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2016, 9:11 am
— (1) In general. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 8:18 am
(The relevant inquiry here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a “new and unobvious functional relationship” with the method, that is, whether the limitation in no way depends on the method,and the method does not depend on the limitation).OutcomeThe rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 8:49 am
” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.The result is a mixed bag:In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 22-28under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Nov 2022, 3:13 am
This refusal was confirmed by the BoA in case R0153/2021-1. [read post]
24 May 2013, 4:00 am
* Although not addressed in the decision, an appointing authority may not excess or lay a tenured employee as a subterfuge for disciplinary action [Young v Board of Education, 35 NY2d 31]. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 11:13 am
A failure to perform a minor part of a contract does not constitute a material breach. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 11:13 am
A failure to perform a minor part of a contract does not constitute a material breach. [read post]
21 Jan 2019, 9:01 am
Patent No. 6,597,812, alleging that the claims were obvious under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 2:22 pm
Thus, the pending en banc questions focus on this stance: 1) In an IPR, when the patent owner moves to amend claims under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
2 Oct 2012, 3:30 pm
If no action is taken by Congress, the exemption will revert to $1 million and the estate tax rate will be 55 percent in 2013. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 2:04 am
(i) For persons under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a license to the Government resulting from a rights determination under Executive Order 10096 does not constitute a license so as to prohibit claiming small entity status. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 11:47 am
In a nutshell, the reason for this was that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)(1) Edmondson could not be used as 102(e)/103 prior art because Edmondson and the challenged patent were both owned by Merck, and Merck was able to antedate Edmondson as a 102(a)/103 reference with respect to Claim 1 and some of the other claims at issue. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 3:45 pm
But does the standard of patent validity actually matter? [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 9:00 pm
The expected dates of proclamation are as follows: July 1, 2018 for the amendments to modernize the Act and the holdback rules; and October 1, 2019 for the amendments related to prompt payment, adjudication and liens against municipalities. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 8:25 pm
§ 102(a)(1). [read post]
17 Jan 2010, 6:28 pm
Contracts -- Contingency fee agreement with attorney who represented plaintiffs in personal injury action -- Where agreement provided that attorney would be paid “33 1/3% of any recovery . . . through the time of the filing of an answer,” and no answer was filed, attorney was entitled to 33 1/3 percent of amount recovered in settlement with personal injury defendant -- Attorney breached terms of agreement by retaining 40 percent of settlement recoveryReported at… [read post]
4 May 2010, 6:44 am
Patent No. 6,708,864 (the ‘864 patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:52 pm
This means that individuals involuntarily terminated between September 1, 2008 and March 31, 2010 are eligible for 15 months of subsidized COBRA premiums—with the employee paying only 35% of the actual COBRA premium. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 5:51 am
The claim refers to "molecular weight" and does not refer to "average molecular weight. [read post]
15 May 2017, 6:13 pm
Representative Claim 1 of U.S. [read post]
