Search for: "Does 1-97"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,134
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2007, 2:06 am
First, John Doe No. 1 shall not participate in any manner, at any level, in the State of Missouri's lethal injection process. 2. [read post]
23 Jun 2021, 12:10 am
A European patent application can be refused under Articles 97(2) and 125 EPC if it claims the same subject-matter as a European patent which has been granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) and (3) EPC.2.1 The application can be refused on that legal basis, irrespective of whether ita) was filed on the same date as, orb) is an earlier application or a divisional application (Article 76(1) EPC) in respect of,… [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 11:30 pm
Turning now to whether the Examining Division dealing with the Divisional application considered the minutes in case T 1712/15 as being a decision: the wording in Form 1703 does not support this. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 11:47 am
’” Id. at 97 (quoting Arthur Kornhaber M.D. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
T 1067/97, which had been cited by the opponent.However, the Board is of the opinion that this question is irrelevant in the present context. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
”R 99(2) provides that “In the statement of grounds of appeal the appellants shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based”.R 101(1) provides that “If the appeal does not comply with A 106 to A 108, R 97 or R 99, paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 2, the Board of Appeal shall reject it as… [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 11:46 pm
Claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:"A method of [...] [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 and T 798/93. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 11:26 am
Unlike the CFPB’s prior monthly complaint reports, the June 2017 report does not highlight complaints about one product or complaints from consumers from one state. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 9:07 am
An honestly held idea does not make it right. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 1:11 pm
Fifth offense DWI does not equal Second offense State v. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 11:28 am
The Supreme Court in Miller v Pate, 386 US 1, 6-7 (1967) stated:The prosecution deliberately misrepresented the truth. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 9:00 pm
Under Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC the proprietor of a registered trade mark has the right to ban a third party from using that trademark in a comparative advertisement not compliant with the requirements as per Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450/EEC (concerning misleading and comparative advertising, amended by Directive 97/55/EC) even if such use does not jeopardise the essential function of the mark (indicating the origin of the goods or services) if… [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 6:07 am
G 3/97, Reasons 5, and G 1/12, Reasons 31) be accepted in that post-published evidence must be disregarded on the ground that the proof of the effect rests exclusively on the post-published evidence.2. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 6:30 pm
B.J. 1, 12-13 (2001-2002)). [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 3:10 pm
Therefore, even though the wording of Art 97(5) does not make any reference to a requirement of targeting (as Eleonora Rosati rightly notes), there may at least be some indirect reference to the concept. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 8:08 am
The issue is whether this is a statuette or ornament of wood of HTSUS heading 4420, an original sculpture of Heading 9703, or an article for use by a religious institution of HTSUS item 9810.00.25.The starting place for this analysis is that Note 1(r) to Chapter 44 excludes works of art of Chapter 97. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
J 24/97 [2.2] and T 1026/06 [4], and the references cited therein.[6] The Board is of the opinion that this date is September 20, 2011, i.e. the day on which the professional representative signed the acknowledgement of receipt. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
That does not mean however, that, if a witness does not itself comply with a request directed to it, the party or representative is indulging in “procedural games”.[36] Therefore, the board decided to refuse the appellant-patentee’s request not to hear the witnesses. [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 11:01 am
Thus, claim 1 does not require the teeth to be adjacent. [read post]
