Search for: "AT&T"
Results 2201 - 2220
of 881,669
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 May 2006, 5:12 pm
" Original Source: Legal loophole emerges in NSA spy program [CNet News.com] Prior Posts:May 18, 2006 - AT&T's Internal Documents Not to Be Returned May 17, 2006 - "State Secrets" Defense Asserted in AT&T/NSA Suit Apr. 15, 2006 - AT&T Covers Tracks of Trackers [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The fact that the recipient (here: the PR) takes notice of the mail only several days or even weeks after [the receipt] is not relevant because the only legal condition, i.e. the delivery to him, is fulfilled (T 247/98 [1]; T 172/04 [4]; T 743/05 [1.6-8]; T 261/07 [1.6]; T 529/09 [4]).Decision T 703/92, which has been invoked by the [opponent] is not to be understood differently. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 6:20 pm
The AT&T/T-Mobile merger would have eased this crisis and accelerated the deployment of next-generation 4G networks. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 7:54 pm
MORE BREITBART T-SHIRTS. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 6:35 pm
I loved it and I don't even have an iPhone… [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 9:41 pm
Davidoff, at the New York Times Dealbook, has a great outline of the AT&T - T-Mobile Deal. [read post]
13 Mar 2021, 12:52 am
According to the complaint, in previous quarters, AT&T had disappointed the... [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 1:55 pm
Who wouldn’t? [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
As discussed […] above, the Board further does not consider the present request for OPs to be lacking in clarity, or to be conditional on unclear circumstances. [1.4.3] T 433/87 is further also not relevant since the request for OPs in the present case was not made dependent on whether the Examiner or ED considered it necessary. [1.4.4] Since the ED came to the conclusion to refuse the application the condition involved by the applicant applied and it should therefore have arranged… [read post]
11 May 2010, 3:02 pm
Yesterday we have seen how the transfer of opponent status relates to the question of reformatio in peius. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
T 265/85, the Board can but conclude that the invention is not sufficiently clearly and completely disclosed in the sense of A 100(b) and A 83. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the refusal of a divisional application.Claim 1 of the sole request before the Board read:A monopole antenna, said monopole antenna comprising a radiating arm and a ground plane (12), said radiating arm being excited by a transmission line (11), wherein said radiating arm is shaped as a space-filling curve (59-60), wherein said space-filling curve is composed by at least ten connected segments forming a non-periodic portion of said curve, wherein: each of said segments… [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
[… T]he independent claims have been directed to the general concept of combining visual and RFID information. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) refusing the application under consideration for lack of inventive step.Claim 1 of the main request read as follows: A computer-implemented method for displaying data points stored in an OLAP multidimensional database, the data points being defined as locations of data records along at least two dimensions including a first dimension and a second dimension, each of the dimension divided into at least three levels… [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1068/07), this board, albeit in a different composition, acknowledged that the subject-matter of the disclaimer present now in claim 1 of the main request was disclosed in the application as filed. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent, on the ground of A 123(2) (main request) and A 123(3) (auxiliary request).Claim 1 of the sole request before the Board – identical to claim 1 as granted – read:A computer-implemented method for configuring an instrument to perform a measurement function, wherein the instrument includes a programmable hardware element, the method comprising: creating a graphical program, wherein the graphical program implements the… [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:01 pm
[…][9.1] The Board notes that there are no doubts that the response of the applicant dated April 25, 2007 is serious.However, the appellant is wrong when arguing, based on decision T 802/97, that this alone would have required a further communication. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 7:22 pm
NO, WE CAN’T. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
However, as stated in T 763/04 [4.4], “A 113(1) is not a formal provision, but rather one of substance. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 10:59 am
Well, what if that didn’t happen? [read post]
