Search for: "Does 1-35"
Results 4141 - 4160
of 9,557
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
[1] Smith v Jones [1999] 1 SCR 455, 169 DLR (4th) 385 at para 35 [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 5:25 pm
Rule 506 itself allows a company to include up to 35 non-accredited investors in the offering. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The criteria developed in G 1/07[6] Before dealing with the criteria of G 1/07 in detail, it is necessary to deal with the proprietor appellants’ assertion that exclusions from patentability should be construed narrowly. [6.1] According to G 1/07 [3.1], a provision containing exclusions or exceptions from patentability is to be interpreted in such a manner that it takes its effect fully and achieves the purpose for which it was designed. [6.2] As further explained in… [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 7:33 pm
In a decision issued today, the Board emphasized that adding claims beyond a 1-1 substitution creates a presumption of unreasonability. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 2:55 pm
Representative Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. [read post]
15 Jul 2012, 9:16 am
Footnotes [1] Rule 506 also permits sales to up to 35 non-accredited investors, but because of the onerous conditions placed upon the issuer who includes such non-accredited investors, it is rarely used. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 7:25 am
Finally, the framework does not specify how much household income would be subject to the 12 percent bracket. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 9:30 pm
When it does, it can't help but have an effect on future cases. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 9:24 am
Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946). [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 9:00 pm
. does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other compositions," and therefore does not qualify as a "teaching away." [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:35 am
Likewise…the fact that legislation is retrospective (if that be the case) does not necessarily mean that it violates A1P1: see MA v Finland(Application No 27793/95). 35. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 6:35 am
[T]he claim 1 term of “compounds of the formula AxBxOx” is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions (i.e., one being open ended as argued by Appellants and one being closed-ended as presented by the Examiner), thereby justifying requiring Appellants to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
9 May 2012, 1:00 pm
This does not have to be a one-off event. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 8:00 am
In the recent Alice Corp[1] decision, the US Supreme Court set out a framework for assessing whether claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
15 Jul 2012, 9:16 am
Footnotes [1] Rule 506 also permits sales to up to 35 non-accredited investors, but because of the onerous conditions placed upon the issuer who includes such non-accredited investors, it is rarely used. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 8:54 am
However, the Rule 4(b) (1) notice does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to correct a clerical error in the judgment or correct a sentence under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:31 pm
Combs, 49 Cal.App.4th 35, 70. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 3:58 am
Many of the realists insist that the rational element in law is an illusion:(a) Supporting: Conceivably Frank: 1;(b) Colorable: (i) Unrebutted: Green 1; (ii) Rebutted: 4;(c) Negating 13;(d) No evidence noted: 1. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 1:28 pm
When the PEB receives the MEB findings (usually within 35 days), the PEB determines which of the medical conditions claimed qualify for DoD disability. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 8:55 pm
In summary, the new FCA webpage reminds firms that: From 1 January 2022, 24 of the 35 LIBOR settings, which relate to specific currencies and time periods, will no longer be available. [read post]
