Search for: "Does 1-194" Results 401 - 420 of 683
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The features relating to a hub are not to be considered as forming part of the subject-matter of this claim and thus have to be disregarded.[2.2] [The patent proprietor] agreed to the Board’s opinion of the annex that claim 1 is related to a container and is supposed to describe features of this container.Concerning the features of claim 1 relating to the hub which was referred to in this claim as a second entity it expressed the view, referring to decisions T 455/92 and T… [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 1:58 pm
This is because Section 186 sets out exceptions in respect of the law relating to the validity of wills, the relevant one being subsection (3):186  (1) Subject to sections 193 and 194, Part 4 [Wills] applies to a will, whenever executed, if the will-maker dies on or after the date on which Part 4 comes into force.(2) Subsection (1) does not invalidate a will validly made before the date on which Part 4 comes into force.(3) Subsection (1)… [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 9:42 am by Bexis
  So where does the decision go next? [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 8:14 am by WSLL
Peterson, 27 Wyo. 185, 194 P. 342, 348 (1920). [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 3:26 pm by David Cheifetz
No. 4194, (C.A.). [194] Perhaps if the court were to look at this figure in isolation, this argument may have some merit. [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 12:10 pm
But Clement goes on to make this remarkable statement: "From the birth of Christ . . . to the death of Commodus are, in all, 194 years, one month, thirteen days." [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 2:36 pm by dennis l. hall
Attorney feesThe court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for any of the following:1. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 2:58 am by PaulKostro
Equitable estoppel does not require a definite promise, but may be invoked when there is “conduct, either express or implied, which reasonably misleads another to his prejudice so that a repudiation of such conduct would be unjust in the eyes of the law. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 4:17 pm by Administrator
The Consent Order does not include any fine or penalty to be paid by UEBF, and the agreement states that it is not binding on any other agency, including the IRS. [read post]