Search for: "MATTER OF T B" Results 381 - 400 of 20,022
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver
T 708/00 [17], T 377/01 [3.1], T 274/03[5-6], T 915/03 [4 [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 10:35 am
"Then we could focus all our attention on a more urgent matter struggling for oxygen right now, and that's the National Broadband Plan. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 7:14 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Turning to failure to state a claim, defendants argued that “0g Trans Fat” wasn’t misleading as a matter of law. [read post]
It will take years of court decisions to flesh out what “fair notice” and “public interest” mean, but the answer probably won’t matter since “could constitute” is a license to substitute possibilities for probabilities in the elements of all violations. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Case Law, 6th edition, VII.E.16.4.1, and VII.E.16.5.4; cf. e.g. also T 33/07; T 321/07; T 1168/08; T 1634/09). [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 12:24 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
Nevertheless, it tended to the view that the simulation method underlying claim 1 of each request did not contribute to the technical character of the invention and that the subject-matter of claim 1 of each request lacked inventive step.V. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In particular the board has examined whether the subject-matter of claims 11 and 12 has a technical character because the claimed program, when run on a computer, causes a “further technical effect” (see T 1173/97 [9.4]). [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 4:03 am
However, the plaintiffs didn't really move under FRCP 60(b), but rather filed "a motion to transfer venue in which, rather than objecting to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it asserted that it ‘intend[ed] to file an amended complaint as a matter of right.'" Obviously, this goes nowhere. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 7:33 am by Jessica Kroeze
The opponent invoked the grounds for opposition pursuant to Article 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC, which are all maintained in these appeal proceedings.II. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 11:39 am by Jonathan Bailey
If they don’t, then infringement doesn’t matter at all. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 8:57 am by Liisa Speaker
The trial court upheld the fee.Opinion:While the Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that local units of government share the costs for juvenile adjudication and supervision, it disagreed with the imposition of the $100 probation supervision fee, vacating and remanding the matter back to the trial court.The court said:Petitioner first contended the $100 probation supervision fee is authorized by MCL 712A.18(1)(b). [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In the present case, the appellant’s statement of grounds of appeal did not include any argument regarding the obviousness of the claimed subject-matter. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 8:11 am by Roel van Woudenberg
(b) With respect to the requirement of inventive step, communication B contained on page 1 an introductory remark to the effect that an amendment of the claims based on the description as originally filed in order to arrive at inventive subject-matter seemed impossible. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
It follows from the above considerations that the subject-matter of claim 1 of this request lacks the requirements of A 54(1) and (2) EPC 1973 in the light of the disclosure of D4. [read post]
21 Oct 2022, 8:04 am by David
 Rule 4.2 in most states prohibits, without consent of opposing counsel, communications about a matter with a person represented by counsel in that matter. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 1:05 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
  Litman was in law school b/t Inwood and Two Pesos. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 2:19 am
Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000)TMEP § 1204.04(b), entitled "Deletion of § 2(b) Matter," states that a flag design may be deleted "if the flag design is spatially separated from other matter in the mark or is used as a background for other words or designs. [read post]
22 Oct 2008, 2:18 pm
Yesterday's Court of Appeals decision in the case of In the Matter of T.B., and Charity B. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Thus the disclaimer was also necessary for disclaiming subject-matter being excluded from patentability. [read post]