Search for: "MATTER OF K A B"
Results 2061 - 2080
of 2,720
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, both the present application and D1, when they were classified according to the IPC by the EPO, have been classified in groups B04 5/26 (multiple arrangement of cyclones for series flow) and B04C 5/28 (multiple arrangement of cyclones for parallel flow). [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 7:17 pm
Hugh B. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Thus the disclaimer was also necessary for disclaiming subject-matter being excluded from patentability. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 1:58 am
DuMont Schauberg Expedition der Kölnischen Zeitung GmbH & Co KG. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:28 am
Gonda and Amanda K. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
The board considers both issues rather to be a subsidiary matter in the present case. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 5:01 am
See Section 12(b), 15 USC 78l(b). [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 6:29 am
” David K. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 9:01 pm
. #40 Small Business Trends #41 Jonathan B. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 9:01 pm
. #40 Small Business Trends #41 Jonathan B. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
Filed under: Defined Benefit Plans, Defined Contribution Plans, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment Tax, ERISA, Retirement Plans, Risk Management, Tax, Tax Qualification Tagged: 401(k) Plan, 403(b) Plan, employee benefit plan, Employee Plan, IRS, plan qualification, Qualified Plan, retirement plan, Tax [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 11:01 am
(b) The decision to add a calling customer to a known bonus programme may be innovative, but it is of an administrative nature and does not require any inventive technical consideration. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
” [11] Thus, prima facie and when regarded separately, the meaning of both claims 13 and 14 is clear, i.e. they both relate to the same subject-matter. [12] However, as noted in point [2] above, the meaning of a claims is determined in the context of the whole application, i.e. also in context with other claims. [12.1] When claim 13 is regarded in context with claim 14 an uncertainty about the meaning of claim 13 arises in because claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, yet covers the same… [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 4:40 pm
B.A., University of Washington B. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
A 83 and A 100(b) concern sufficiency of disclosure and, in the words of T 608/07, whether an ambiguity deprives the skilled person of the promise of invention. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 12:44 am
While examining the various judicial pronouncements on the subject the Court took a different view from earlier decisions and has accordingly referred the matter for reconsidered by a larger Bench of the Court. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
In respect of this crucial issue the decision under appeal thus suffers from a deficiency under R 111(2), first requirement.[6.3.2] Documents A and B filed in response to the communication which the board had issued in preparation of the OPs and in which it gave also a preliminary view on that issue (A 100 (b)) do not support the respondent’s position […]. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request under consideration as a whole includes a therapeutic method. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
The OD has not mentioned those matters in its notification of June 2, 2006, and has never informed the patent proprietor during the opposition proceedings that it intended to introduce this new ground. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
It is therefore the applicant who is entitled to file requests in grant proceedings before the EPO (see for example A 93(1)(b) (request for early publication), R 70(1) (request for examination) and R 71(4) (request for amendments)). [read post]
