Search for: "MATTER OF R R A K"
Results 21 - 40
of 3,915
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
The nature of the reasons is often only clear from the (written) reasons; as a matter of fact, there is no obligation to raise objections under R 106 in this case, because “such objection could not be raised during the appeal proceedings”. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 1:16 pm
CHAD HAWKINSON, DACE R. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 11:24 am
James Walsh (R-N.Y.) is among the members of the K&L Gates government affairs practice who this week notified Congress that they are advocating for a southeastern U.S. fishermen’s organization. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, the novelty of the claimed subject-matter has to be examined for each request. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
However, even if that should not be the case, it would be contrary to a Board’s necessary neutrality to assist a party by giving possible reasons for deciding against it (see R 1/08 [3.1]; R 18/09 [14]). [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 3:24 pm
Whether or not this finding is correct in substance cannot be the subject of the review proceedings (see R 2/08 [5]; R 9/08 [6.3]). [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, such an objection (Rüge) would make the very same objections (Einwände) regarding the violation of the right to be heard, on which the BoA had already decided, afresh subject of the proceedings (Verfahrensgegenstand), admittedly before the EBA. [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 4:36 pm
Filing for a Fiance Visa (K-1) and Spouse Visa (K-3) requires consular processing; that is, the immigration case is processed at the U.S. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 4:30 am
Vonda K. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, it claims that the appeal does not comply with R 99(2) which requires that the statement setting out the grounds for appeal “shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended, and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based”.[1.3] The statement setting out the grounds for appeal indicates in detail why the [opponent] considered that the subject-matter of the claims intended to be maintained by… [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
R 137(4) in the version that was in force from December 13, 2007, to March 31, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as R 137(4), version of before April 1, 2010) has to be applied.[2.2.2] R 137(4), version of before April 1, 2010, provides that amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept. [read post]
17 Mar 2012, 12:01 pm
Even if (which the EBA is in no position to decide) the BoA did fail to acknowledge a correct method, that is not a matter which could lead to a finding of a fundamental violation of A 113(1). [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 5:58 pm
Clark, a/k/a Cristal R. [read post]
12 Jun 2010, 11:02 am
It is pointed out in this context, that it is not the purpose of that right to provide – and the A 112a(2) (c) and A 113(1) may not be construed as providing – to any party to the proceedings a further opportunity to argue its case. [9] The Petitioner relies also on purported violations of A 114 in conjunction with R 116(1) and (2) or, respectively, R 101 and 99(2). [read post]
29 Jun 2013, 11:01 am
As a matter of fact, I had not extracted the date of the first instance decision, and I found the idea of looking them up (for more than 1400 decisions) disheartening. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
The case-law of the EBA shows clearly that petition proceedings may not be used to review the exercise by a Board of Appeal of a discretionary power if that would involve an impermissible consideration of substantive issues (see R 1/08 [2.1]; R 10/09 [2.2]; R 9/10 [10]). [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
A 112a cannot relieve (entbinden) a party of this risk (see R 4/08 [3.3] and R 12/09 [13]). [read post]
6 Aug 2016, 9:10 pm
Robert C Faber of Ostrolenk Faber LLP; Jonathan K. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 3:00 pm
In the enforcement matter against Ameriprise, FINRA found that during the period from January 2004 through December 2007, H&R Block engaged in sales of RCNs without having a system or procedures in place to effectively monitor customer accounts for potential over-concentrations in RCNs. [read post]
22 May 2010, 11:00 am
This was a matter for the grounds of appeal. [read post]
