Search for: "Does 1-53"
Results 21 - 40
of 3,209
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2019, 7:21 am
The latest issue of the Journal of World Trade (Vol. 53, no. 1, 2019) is out. [read post]
22 May 2012, 1:17 pm
Access the complete 53-page GAO report (click here). [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
The Examining Division (ED) had refused the application as contrary to A 53(c).Claims 1 and 10 of the main request before the Board read:1. [read post]
14 May 2020, 8:52 am
This negative effect does not apply to European patents granted before 1 July 2017 and European patent applications which were filed before that date and are still pending. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 1:13 am
With the statement of the grounds of appeal the appellant re-submitted the main request, filed new auxiliary requests 1 to 6 and submitted arguments to the effect that the subject-matter of claim 1 of all the requests was not excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53(b) EPC.Claim 1 of the main request read:"1. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
Prior litigation does not bar revaluation of disabled employee’s ability to perform the duties of the position Bett v City of Lackawanna, 53 AD3d 1097 A firefighter was disabled, preventing him from performing his duties as a firefighter and he was paid him his full salary until he was terminated after he failed to report to work for light duty. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 6:09 am
What if the return on that technology was $400:$1--for every $1 of government program money spent, the return in cost savings was $400? [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the usual practice is that particular embodiments of a claimed invention are only disclosed in detail in the description and drawings.[2.3] Hence, the main request cannot be allowed as it does not comply with A 53(c).The applicant then introduced a disclaimer the wording of which was inspired by G 1/07. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 4:03 am
Does Size Matter? [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request read: 1. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 8:00 am
§ 14501(c)(1). [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:10 am
Article 4 of the Biotech Directive mirrors the wording of Article 53(b) EPC, and excludes from patentability essentially biological processes for producing plants and animals, but does not explicitly exclude products produced by such processes. [read post]
17 Oct 2019, 8:41 am
DocName=072005700HArt%252E+IV&ActID=1941&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=5200000&SeqEnd=7900000 https://www.iwu.edu/counseling/Illinois_Drug_Laws.htm Read More [read post]
15 Jan 2022, 11:30 am
’845 patent, col. 4, lines 46–53 [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
The EBA had held that Article 53(b) EPC does not exclude plants from patentability, even if they are obtained through an essentially biological process. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, claim 1 does not contain any additional feature related to any implementation in a therapeutic method.The particular approach to novelty created by decision G 6/83, therefore, does not apply to claim 1 of the main request, the subject-matter of which is equivalent to a process claim, i.e. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 7:06 pm
It is commonly used to indicate an area in which the firm or business does most of its work. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 5:38 am
" Specifically, the defendant argues that the § 53-202k sentence enhancement provision does not apply (1) to an unarmed coconspirator and (2) to an unarmed accomplice who was not present during the commission of the felony. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 9:52 am
The law does not cover automobiles, but Illinois does have a separate law for vehicular theft. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 9:50 am
§ 13-8-53(d). [read post]
