Search for: "C. G., Matter of"
Results 441 - 460
of 3,967
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2010, 8:57 am
But just as P&G faces risk in extending its brand, so too would BigLaw. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 1:01 am
Consequently, the provisions are challenged as violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A. [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 7:15 am
The reasons for revocation are limited to added subject-matter in respect of granted claim 1 (alternative claims submitted during the hearing by Nestec were not admitted into the proceedings). [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 8:40 am
C. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 1:54 pm
16 U.S.C. 1540(g)(2)(C). [read post]
5 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
The EBA has noted further that “[T]o restrict the application of R 28(c) (formerly R 23d(c)) to what an applicant chooses explicitly to put in his claim would have the undesirable consequence of making avoidance of the patenting prohibition merely a matter of clever and skilful drafting of such claims” (see point [22] of the Reasons). [21] The present Board does not see any reason to apply this approach of decision G 2/06 to the situation underlying… [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 1:00 am
The appeal considered whether proof of an offence contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 brought against a business operator as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires proof of mens rea and/or some culpable act or omission on the part of the business operator. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am
This appeal considers whether proof of an offence contrary to Regulation 30(1)(g) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 brought against a business operator as defined in Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires proof of mens rea and/or some culpable act or omission on the part of the business operator. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:43 pm
(c) However, Section 42 only applies to applications made under Part-I if they are made to a court as defined. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 6:00 am
Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 6:00 am
Supreme Court granted the petition and remanded the matter to DOE for further proceedings. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm
Consequently, the product-by-process features of claim 1 of the main request is not clear and does not permit the conclusion that the inevitable process product thereof is novel over the prior art catalysts. [3.7] Therefore, the product-by-process features in claim 1 of the main request do not clearly define patentable subject-matter and the claim does not meet the requirements of A 84. [3.8] To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 7:56 am
[Matter of Roche, 296 N.J. [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:10 am
Article 53(c) EPC excludes from patentablity processes for producing plants and animals by essentially natural processes. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 3:06 pm
Rule 9 of Section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme and County Courts provides that disputing parties who consent to this process must be ready for trial in nine months (including completion of mandatory mediation). [read post]
21 Jul 2007, 8:18 am
L. c. 276, § 2, art. 14, and the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 12:54 pm
This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The EBA based its decision on the fact that, when a decision is handed over by the formalities section to the EPO postal service for notification, it is taken from the file and is therefore removed from the power of the department that issued it, and that this moment marked the completion of proceedings before the decision-making department (G 12/91 [9.3]).It further held that once proceedings have been completed the decision-making department can no longer amend its decision but must… [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 5:03 pm
Cohen, BER-C-134-08, Hon. [read post]
