Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 2121 - 2140
of 3,413
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2013, 4:58 am
We explored three questions: 1. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Wilming in epi Information 1/2011, p. 31. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
Thus if either Question 1 or Question 2 established that the claim element is essen- tial, then it is essential. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 5:04 am
However, before the EPO, an equivalent national patent application does not count as prior art. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 5:43 pm
” Id. at 1353-54 (citation omitted). [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 10:13 am
Here are the earlier entries: 1. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
David Mayer Naman brought action against the Board of Appeal’s decision before the General Court, asserting the violation of Article 54(2), Article 57(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(b) of the CTMR. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 4:00 am
The basic rules are: 1. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
As claims 2 to 21 are dependent on claim 1, the request as a whole complies with the requirements of A 54. [read post]
2 Mar 2013, 1:58 am
The fact that there was thought to be a wider ‘scandal’ does not alter the position. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 12:12 pm
(a) Rule 54(d)(1) gives courts discretion to award costs to prevailing parties, but this discretion can be displaced by a federal statute or FRCP that “provides otherwise,” i.e., is “contrary” to Rule 54(d)(1).Contrary to the argument of Marx and the United States, as amicus, language of the original 1937 version of the Rule does not suggest that any “express provision” for costs should displace Rule… [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 12:12 pm
(a) Rule 54(d)(1) gives courts discretion to award costs to prevailing parties, but this discretion can be displaced by a federal statute or FRCP that “provides otherwise,” i.e., is “contrary” to Rule 54(d)(1).Contrary to the argument of Marx and the United States, as amicus, language of the original 1937 version of the Rule does not suggest that any “express provision” for costs should displace Rule… [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:33 am
P. 7001(1)[v]Fed. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, the fact that in claim 1 the pull-off opening means, the frame and the cap are listed as three distinct elements does not exclude that these elements may be interconnected with each other or even that they may be integral with each other. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 2:23 pm
By contrast, a monetary award does not flow from any legal duty, but involves an adjustment of the equities, rights and interests of the parties in marital property. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
A 123, A 83, A 84 and A 54[2] The board has no reason to disagree with the findings of the OD with respect to A 123(2) and A 54. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In the decision under appeal it was held that it does, because the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot claim priority from the US application No. 835,799 […]. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 3:30 am
Co. (1880) 54 Cal. 442. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The amendment to claim 1 aims at excluding the alloy compositions disclosed in Table 1 of document D1, which represents prior art in the sense of A 54(3). [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
For this reason the OD was wrong to hold that the PRP applied only to requests on whose allowability a decision had been taken by the Board of Appeal […]. [2.3.2] The reasoning of G 4/93 also does not imply that, as the opponent argued […], the PRP prevails only on condition that the factual situation at the time of the first instance decision is the same as on appeal by the opponent. [read post]
