Search for: "MATTER OF K A B"
Results 2141 - 2160
of 2,720
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2011, 3:00 am
Justice Pines' December 14, 2010, post-trial decision in Matter of Wenger (L.A. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 12:15 pm
Perez and Minerva B. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
It follows that document D1 takes away the novelty under A 54(3) of the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm
David B. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm
David B. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 5:17 am
Depending on the circumstances, additional facts might matter. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 5:17 am
Depending on the circumstances, additional facts might matter. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
The solution as claimed is, as discussed above, not considered obvious.Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 involves an inventive step in the sense of A 56.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.To have a look at the file wrapper, click here.The decision has also been commented on Visae Patentes. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 5:10 am
Kucina, K. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 6:10 am
The court rejects this argument: [b]y their express language, Twitter's terms grant a license to use content only to Twitter and its partners. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 6:56 am
It is a residuary power in the sense that it confers an appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court subject to the special leave being granted in such matters as may not be covered by the preceding articles. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
[26] Thus, in conclusion the board is satisfied in view of Example 2 that the subject-matter of the claims is a solution to the problem formulated above, i.e. the provision of an alternative vaccine against ISAV. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 8:20 am
Ginsburg Earlier this month, Judge Donovan Frank applied the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine's statutory companion, Section 13(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, a/k/a 12 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 5:53 am
William K. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 5:03 pm
§ 362(k)(1). [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 4:40 am
b. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
Thus, the second requirement for allowing a correction in the sense of R 139 is also fulfilled in the present case. [2.1.5] Accordingly, the amendment to formula (I) is allowable under R 139 and does not introduce subject-matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm
Like its federal counterpart, Mississippi Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 9:25 am
In the previous case, the court upheld section I(b) against a constitutional challenge on the basis that I(b) requires a "repeated course of calls. [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
As set out in documents D12 and D20, two lots falling under the scope of the claim were assessed: lot B-1 (11,1 mg of water per ml of composition) exhibiting at least no better resuspendability than lot A (2.3 mg/ml) after 15 days and 3 months, and lot B-2 (21.0 mg/ml) exhibiting an even worse one. [read post]
