Search for: "D2"
Results 101 - 120
of 408
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2021, 8:54 am
It objected that the subject-matter of claim 1 and/or claim 2 of the main request and the auxiliary requests corresponding to sets A to C was not novel in view of D1, D2, D4, A006 or A012.X. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 11:01 am
Document D2 was published in 1968, well before the inkjet printing technology was even available. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Moreover, as there are no exemplary values in D2, this selection has to be considered to be remote from the central embodiments of document D2. [read post]
11 May 2020, 11:45 pm
The appellant's arguments may be summarised as follows:The subject-matter of claims 1 and 9 was novel over D1 and D2. [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:01 pm
The main request thus is not allowable.[2.5] In view of this, the [opponent’s] further insufficiency objections against the main request need not be dealt with as far as the main request is concerned.First auxiliary request[…] [4.1] Independent process claim 1 refers to a production process for a pulverised water-absorbent resin powder, which comprises the steps of:obtaining crosslinked polymer particles by way of an aqueous solution polymerisation step,pulverising the crosslinked… [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 9:00 pm
D2 ne décrivait aucun moyen permettant de charger le compte. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 12:33 pm
Person D2 likewise seemed to think that Manafort was trying to send a message to members of the Hapsburg Group. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 11:01 am
D2 is the earliest priority document of document D1. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 1:19 am
The Board concluded that the design of the clinical trials in D2 implied the combined effect of LCM and LVT. [read post]
29 Sep 2018, 10:11 pm
Further, the features of using the second additional resistor together with the plurality of the resistors coupled to the bulks provides similar benefits as those obtained by the resistors coupled to the gates.With the background of D1, the skilled person is posed with the problem to design a device which achieves high isolation and low insertion loss.A person skilled in the art would find a solution in D2, since D2 describes a switch where parameters as insertion loss and… [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
D2 is found to be the closest prior art.*** Translated from the German ***[4.3] The storage device according to claim 1 differs from the one of D2 by a first group of distinguishing features (hereinafter: “first group of features”), i.e. the part of feature [g] concerning the arrangement of full strand and empty strand, as well as feature [h]. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
Therefore, it could not be obvious to combine D5 and D2. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 11:21 am
State of Washington: 550199 Appellants’ Brief.pdfDownload 550199 Respondent’s Brief.pdfDownload 550199-Reply Brief.pdfDownload D2 55019-9-II Published Opinion.pdfDownload [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 6:31 am
Clark County Sheriff’s Office: d2-52826-6-ii-unpublished-opinionDownload Briefs here: 528266-appellants-briefDownload 528266-respondents-briefDownload [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:51 am
Whilst initially supportive of D2’s approach, Mr X subsequently persuaded D2 to meet with a journalist from the Sunday Mirror (referred to simply as “Ms K” in the judgment). [read post]
26 Jan 2008, 11:23 am
They were successful in getting d2? [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:26 am
Where D2 aids and abets D1 to commit a single crime, for example where D2 provides D1 with a weapon to commit a robbery. c. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 5:35 am
Some will say that a “no damages for delay” clause is harsh. [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
(b) The sole independent claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request was novel over D1, D9, D10 and D18 and involved an inventive step over D2 as closest prior art.IV. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 1:24 am
In determining the necessary “connection”, Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 showed that D2 could be vicariously liable despite D1 committing the tort outside D2’s authority or directly against his orders – but it would not be sufficient that his employment by D2 afforded D1 the opportunity to commit the torts: “It is whether D2 has put D1, for his own purposes, into a position, in which the risk of a tort of the kind committed… [read post]
