Search for: "Does 1-53"
Results 1 - 20
of 3,184
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jun 2008, 6:43 pm
And does this raise potential privacy concerns? [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 7:45 am
A couple of weeks ago, someone* inquired about a reference notation in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, Public Law 76-1, 53 Stat. 1. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 9:32 am
In the circumstances, it is of no relevance that the protection conferred by the product claim encompasses the generation of the claimed product by means of an essentially biological process for the production of plants excluded as such under Article 53(b) EPC.Broccoli II:1. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 10:13 pm
It does not automatically allow all advocates to practice as patent agents. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 9:12 am
These related to the exception to patentability in the second part (shown in bold) of Article 53(b) EPC that:European patents shall not be granted in respect of: plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision shall not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof;The two decisions have confirmed that the exclusion of essentially biological processes for the production of plants in Article… [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 10:16 pm
John Bazilio, 53, was stopped by the Mashpee police officers on March 10th at around 1:30 a.m. reports the Boston Herald. [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 5:03 am
Code § 44-53-375(B)(1), under which he was convicted does not provide for CSP. [read post]
8 May 2012, 9:00 am
In short, just because your child does not live with you does not necessarily mean you can't get child support. [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 12:38 pm
Similarly aimed construction commenced on Butterfield Road (Route 56) in DuPage on June 1, 2011. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:16 am
Article 53 EPC itself, but also by case law, i.e. an interpretation ofArticle 53 EPC given in an earlier decision of the Enlarged Board.7. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Furthermore, as explained above, claim 1 does not include any such method step for treatment.It follows that claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 does not fall under the exception clause of A 53(c).The issue of exception from patentability has to be decided on the basis of the given wording of the claim as indicated above (possibly taking into consideration additional information provided in the description, which was not necessary in the case at… [read post]
30 May 2011, 5:29 pm
Lawdiva Updates: 1. [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 5:23 pm
” It differs from a summary dispossess action under N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 which permits the removal of tenants or lessees under certain circumstances (e.g., holdover tenants, defaults in rent, and certain violations of the leasing agreement), but does not involve claims to title of the property. [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:01 pm
In this revocation appeal Board 3.2.02 inter alia examined claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request as to its compliance with A 53(c). [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 am
However the Enlarged Board of Appeal also held that:"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" (ibid).4. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 8:00 pm
Pledgee may exercise rights as if there is no bankruptcy Article 53 paragraph 1 of the Bankruptcy Act of the Netherlands Antilles states that a pledgee can exercise its rights as if there is no bankruptcy. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 7:09 am
The Board of Appeal first underscores that independent claim 1 does not contain any feature explicitly involving a method of treatment by surgery. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 11:48 am
The case has already been the subject of a referral to the Enlarged Board in G 1/08, which decided as follows: 1. [read post]
23 May 2016, 8:01 am
[Docket Entry No. 55-1]. [read post]
31 May 2020, 10:00 pm
Following this, the Board reversed the rejection of Syngenta’s patenting of chili pepper plants holding that its application to register EP 27 53 168 should not have been rejected by the EPO on the basis of Rule 28(2). [read post]
