Search for: "Doe 35" Results 4241 - 4260 of 17,233
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The board therefore concludes that the amendment introduced into claim 1 of the sixth auxiliary request does not comply with the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 1:35 pm
If Congress does act, it may make the legislation effective as of the date of enactment or some other date, including a date as early as January 1, 2010. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 5:29 am by John S. Moffa
The city argued that this statute does not apply to such a situation, while the plaintiff argued that it does. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 8:22 am by Dennis Crouch
First, the § 315(b) time bar does not impact the Board’s authority to invalidate a patent claim—it only bars particular petitioners from challenging the claim. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 2:35 pm by Nicole Mazzocco
  That statute does not require written objections to a special assessment; an oral objection at a hearing is sufficient. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 8:18 am by Dennis Crouch
  Notably, priority is not based upon whether a means-plus-function claim is properly drafted under 35 U.S.C. 112p6. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
Otherwise, counsel does not know what they do not know and could be asking for. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 5:29 am by Hannah Meakin and Mark Chalmers
That requirement does not apply to any derivative contract that is already subject to the access obligations under Article 8 of EMIR. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 8:04 pm by Phyllis Weiss Haserot
(I would say these factors influence the younger Gen Xers, say under age 35, as well.) [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 7:27 pm
Note to HR managers: gender transition does not endanger security clearances, though it does trigger reporting requirements. [read post]
8 Dec 2013, 8:00 pm by Karel Frielink
The fact that the ship may have left Curaçao once the claim on the merits has been instituted does not mean that the court of Curaçao no longer has jurisdiction. [read post]
20 May 2014, 8:20 am by Francis Pileggi
One of the cases cited in the footnote emphasized that: This Court does not condone ad hominem attacks. [read post]