Search for: "IN THE MATTER OF J. A. C." Results 221 - 240 of 5,589
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2022, 1:36 am by Roel van Woudenberg
  The examining division equated the term "embodiment" with subject-matter that has to fall "within the scope of the invention as defined by the claims", and concluded that the description so adapted was not in conformity with the independent claims, contrary to Rule 42(1)(c) EPC, because the term "embodiment" was used in parts of the description that describe subject-matter that was not part of the subject-matter of these… [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Professional representatives are subject to the disciplinary power exercised by the Institute of Professional Representatives (epi) or the EPO (A 134a(1)(c)) whereas the disciplinary power to which legal practitioners are subject is a matter of national law and is exercised by national organisations or offices. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 3:42 pm by familoo
Firstly, the Mostyn J judgment authorising the c-section. [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 1:09 pm by Dennis Crouch
Patent and Trademark Office interprets this to mean no, never, no matter what. 15 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 12:02 pm by Patricia Hughes
In their dissent, Brown and Rowe JJ. applied a narrower interpretation, as did Côté J. in her separate dissent. [read post]