Search for: "Does 1-10" Results 2781 - 2800 of 41,642
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2018, 12:24 am by Sander van Rijnswou
In the absence of a test method in the patent for determining the anti-adherence of a material, the skilled person is unable to establish, even qualitatively, suitable materials from the extensive group of materials listed in claim 1 which will meet the claimed anti-adherence.1.4 Still further, claim 1 does not limit the amount of anti-adherent material to be included in the composition such that this can range from a fraction of 1% to approaching 100%, this… [read post]
9 May 2018, 12:24 am by Sander van Rijnswou
In the absence of a test method in the patent for determining the anti-adherence of a material, the skilled person is unable to establish, even qualitatively, suitable materials from the extensive group of materials listed in claim 1 which will meet the claimed anti-adherence.1.4 Still further, claim 1 does not limit the amount of anti-adherent material to be included in the composition such that this can range from a fraction of 1% to approaching 100%, this… [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 9:44 am by Craig D. Dillard and Elizabeth P. Nevle
Department of Energy (DOE) published a review of the large-capacity battery supply chain and recommended establishing domestic production and processing capabilities for critical materials to support a fully domestic battery supply chain.9 The DOE determined that multiple energy technologies are highly dependent on insecure and unstable foreign sources—necessitating domestic growth of the battery industry.10 In response, the DOE issued two notices… [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:01 pm by Silver Law Group
A whistleblower award can range from 10 to 30 percent of the money collected when the sanction is $1 million or more. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 6:00 am
I have Master's Degree in Commerce & working experience 10 years + as an Accountant. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 5:54 am by Jeroen Willekens
This decision concerns the appeal filed by the patent proprietor (appellant) against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke European patent No. 1 777 707.II. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
 [8] The appellant-opponent has argued that claim 1 does not fulfil one prerequisite to qualify as a second medical use-claim in accordance with G 5/83, namely that a “medicament” is used in the treatment. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 5:34 am
However, if you’re a glutton for punishment or have a (somewhat unhealthy) predilection for rounding conventions (as, strangely, this Kat does), then off we go.ConvaTec Technologies and Smith & Nephew have added another court appearance to their long list of confrontations. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 9:54 am by Benjamin Wittes
In fact, I can do it in five sentences: (1) Chief Judge David Sentelle opens the hearing by announcing that it can’t be held in open session so he’s closing the court, though Judge Merrick Garland reminds him that the court had agreed to do that portion of the argument in public that does not involve classified material. (2) Judge Sentelle thanks Judge Garland and agrees that the jurisdictional portion of the argument (I hadn’t known there was one) could take… [read post]
25 May 2007, 9:10 am
Mersey Seafoods Ltd., 2007 NSSC 155 , Justice Warner ruled that the occupational health and safety legislation of Nova Scotia does not apply to a fishing vessel based out of Nova Scotia. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 8:33 am
If an applicant remains in the US unlawfully (without authorization) for more than 360 days (1 year), they may be subject to the 10 year bar. [read post]
15 Oct 2007, 11:05 pm
ESPN ranked Alridge's incredible 50-yard TD run that put away Saturday's game as No. 4 on its top-10 Plays of last Saturdey. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 10:11 am by Bill White
But this also illustrates the problem of trying to apply a weighted average based on ever-shifting class sizes over the last 10 to 30 years. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 4:32 am by Sean Wajert
Idant Laboratories, 2010 WL 1257705  (3d Cir. 4/1/10). [read post]