Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 161 - 180
of 3,364
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Dec 2015, 12:49 pm
As such, it offers temporary relief from penalties: IRS will not treat an HRA available for the expenses of family members not enrolled in the employer’s other group health plan for plan years beginning before January 1, 2016, as failing to be integrated with an employer’s other group health plan for plan years beginning before January 1, 2016. [read post]
16 May 2023, 4:00 am
For example, section 54(1) of the Patent Act states that infringement may be brought in superior courts which is concurrent with the Federal Court’s jurisdiction under section 20 of the Federal Courts Act. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 11:08 pm
The allowability of an undisclosed disclaimer to establish novelty over an Art.54(3) prior right was challenged in opposition. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
What is the correct ground for rejection when the claimed subject-matter does not achieve the alleged technical effect? [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
For this last week: 1. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 2:59 pm
Thus, a person asserting disability based on depression, or bi-polar disorder, or schizophrenia could never qualify under the grid rules 1 You can look at the grid rules here. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:43 am
The opposition division found that the grounds for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) and 100(a) EPC in combination with Articles 52(1) and 54(1),(2) EPC did not prejudice the maintenance of the patent as granted. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 7:56 am
The frequency of such claims beg the questions (1) what exactly is a “confidential relationship,” and (2) what is the practical benefit to an objectant in establishing that one existed? [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 3:57 am
— Consequently, the subject—matter of claim 1 as granted lacked novelty under Article 54(3) EPC in view of the use of the cold flow improver of Example 1, disclosed identically in the parent application and in the priority document. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 9:30 pm
Id. at 1-2. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 6:36 am
Collision Avoidance Technology Purports to Reduce Dependency Upon Driver’s Brain Sadly, motor vehicle accidents remain the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 1-54 years in this country. [read post]
The Rule 54(b) Trap: Dealing with Non-final Orders in Cases with Multiple Claims or Multiple Parties
15 Nov 2010, 12:27 pm
Effective January 1, 2009, the Arkansas Supreme Court amended Rule 54 [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 8:56 am
The subsequent Auxiliary request 2 and Auxiliary request 3 both contained an additional independent claim (i.e., claim 2).Claims 1 and 2 of auxiliary request 2 were based on combinations of claims 1 and 2 and claims 1 and 9 as granted respectively. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:24 am
Rule 76(1) and (2)(c) EPC does not contain any further requirements regarding the content or quality of the notice of opposition. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 7:17 am
According to this Board, the interpretation of those decisions ignores the fact that Article 114(2) EPC does not justify such discretion, as previous case law has repeatedly stated. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 4:42 am
Additionally, claims 1 to 3 fulfill the requirements of Article 84 EPC.Claim 1 - novelty2. [read post]
26 Sep 2018, 12:47 am
Thus, the passage referred to by the examining division discloses that the user can view locally stored information, but it does not disclose that data stored in the BCTs is centrally collected and (statistically) processed and the result returned to the user terminal.3.5 As the board could not identify in document D4 any passages more pertinent to the question of novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1, it concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 is new over the… [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 8:04 am
Doe ex rel Doe 611 F.3d 888, 54 IDELR 275 (DC Cir 7/6/10) DC Circuit ruled that HO did not exceed his authority where he reduced a disciplinary suspension. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 8:40 am
The state pointed out that “[t]he FTC Act’s false advertising prohibition does not include labeling, but that limit explicitly applies only ‘For the purposes of sections 52 to 54,’ not § 45(a)(1), the section in which the Act instructs courts to be ‘guided’ by. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 does not exclude the degradation (Abbau) of the proteins in a subsequent step because the claim is directed at a process comprising the steps (a), (b), and (c). [12] The argument of the [patent proprietor] according to which document D14 does not contain any reference to a clear solution is not persuasive either. [read post]
