Search for: "Matter of G. C. ,"
Results 2441 - 2460
of 4,013
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
It was found that the disclosure of the invention was of such a general nature that it deprived the skilled person of the information he/she needed to understand how to proceed from the first reaction value collected in step A through steps B, C and D to the determination on a probabilistic basis of the genotype of step E. [read post]
2 Mar 2013, 2:37 pm
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2012)As part of that seminar, Professor Broekman organizes a wonderful Roundtable on semiotics and the law, featuring distinguished faculty and Penn State's law students. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 11:56 am
Linton, Esq., Protégé Enterprises, LLC, and Capital Edge Enterprises, LLCCase number: 12-cv-00646 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida)Case filed: April 30, 2012Qualifying Judgment/Order: November 5, 2012 12/7/2012 3/7/2013 2012-126 In the Matter of Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.; Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Acceptance Corp.; Credit Suisse First Boston… [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In application of decision G 7/95 [7.2], the Board had to decide the question whether D1 is disclosing or not all the features of claim 1 as a question of inventive step, since the [patent proprietor] did not give its consent to the introduction of the ground of lack of novelty, raised by the [opponent] for the first time on appeal. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 7:00 am
The Administration’s Substantive Position The administration’s view of this matter has a number of subsidiary components, each of which warrants brief explication. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
§ 41.77(c). [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 10:13 am
(g) This section is intended to occupy the entire field of law related to junk dealer or recycler transactions involving nonferrous material. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 11:00 am
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2013] CSOH 28 P47/12 OPINION OF LORD DRUMMOND YOUNG in the Petition of Mr William MacReath Petitioner; for Judicial Review of a decision of the Law Society of Scotland Act: Ferguson QC, Watts; Simpson & Marwick, Alt: Lindsay QC; Anderson Strathern LLP (Law Society of Scotland) Alt: Miss C, personally (Interested Party) 20 February 2013 [1] The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision of the Law Society of Scotland dated 10 January 2012. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
A 56[3.1] The subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent in suit relates to the (a) use of valaciclovir in the manufacture of a medicament (b) for oral administration (c) for the suppression of recurrent genital herpes in a human host (d) at a once daily dose (e) of 500 mg. [3.2] Document D5 represents the closest state of the art. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 12:41 pm
c. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm
, también de 2006, escrito en el desencanto de la reelección de G. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
[3.1] The respondent argued that A 100(c) had not been cited as a ground for opposition and, making reference to decision G 9/91, concluded that the board was not competent to examine whether or not the amendments are in accordance with the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 3:12 pm
Earlier this month the California Stem Cell Report published an item that said: “In the wake of recent considerable criticism concerning conflicts of interest at the $3 billion California stem cell agency, its leaders have taken to saying 'no actual conflicts' have been found at the agency. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 8:55 am
P. 8(c)(1) (estoppel is an af- firmative defense). [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 1:41 pm
All his life, G. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 10:00 am
Code of Civil Procedure §2025.480 (pdf) "Motion for Order compelling answer or production; Time for motion; Notice; Discovery of electronically stored information; Certified copy of relevant parts of transcript; Monetary and other sanctions" inserted the same langauge in paragraphs (d) - (g) E-DISCOVERY THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND PROTECTED Code of Civil Procedure §2025.460 (pdf) titled “Privileged and protected… [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 7:24 pm
(Article 1( c)). [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 5:36 pm
C. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 2:39 pm
Such a consumer would take the statement "by G. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 12:57 pm
Nor are the grounds asserted by BIPI surprising: (a) Pradaxa is the only drug at issue in the Pradaxa MDL; (b) the sought-for discovery mostly antedates the conduct at issue in the Pradaxa litigation; and (c) obtaining the non-Pradaxa information would "impose a great expense and an undue burden." [read post]
