Search for: "BRS "
Results 461 - 480
of 2,579
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2020, 2:12 pm
” Appellant’s Br. 24–25 (quoting In re Copaxone Consol. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:55 am
Br. 4, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 3:00 am
Br. 20 (“Examiner proposes to apply to Schiller the teachings of Tobery [] in order to achieve what is achieved in Schiller alone”);Result: The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails tosupport a conclusion of obviousness. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 6:02 am
Br. 6.) [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 7:07 am
Reply Br. 6; Baker, col. 5, l. 62-col. 6, l. 3. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 5:12 am
Ex parte AbrahamKeller is citedAlso, we find Appellant presents arguments with respect to theindividual references (Br. 5-7) and fails to appreciate the collective teachingsof the cited combination of references (Aggarwal ’819 and Krajec) as awhole. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:16 pm
See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).ANDAppellants have not proffered any persuasive scientific explanation articulating why the reported results for the limited examples presented would have been logically expected to accrue over the extensive scope of the representative claim 20 subject matter so as to discharge Appellants’ burden of establishing unexpected results that are reasonably commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter (Ans. 12-14; see generally Br.).… [read post]
14 Jan 2023, 10:37 am
Contents include:Articoli e SaggiSimone Marinai & Bruno Nascimbene, Naturalizzazione: un problema di definizioneAlessandra Pietrobon, L’eredità di Papa Benedetto XV per il Diritto internazionale e il nuovo dibattito sulla “guerra giusta” Leonardo Pasquali, Corti costituzionali, applicazione del Diritto internazionale e controlimitiPasquale Pirrone, Différences culturelles et Droit international privé de la famille: brèves remarquesElisa… [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 9:41 am
Appellants’ Br. 23. [read post]
10 May 2021, 3:47 pm
” Appellant’s Br. at 54. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 7:42 am
” (Reply Br. 3.) [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 3:28 pm
Appellants’ Br. 1. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:12 am
Appellee’s Br. 2. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 7:37 am
In Ex parte KIKINIS , the Board affirmed the rejection of the examiner under 35 USC 102(e).The issueWe consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented inthe principal Brief, pages 5-7, Reply Br. 1-4.Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred infinding that Arsenault describes in response to storing, in its entirety, in a data storage area, received programming information, a user device continuously scans the data storage area to remove therefrom… [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 11:53 am
BR, o foro de arbitragem começará a funcionar em outubro. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 4:02 am
See Br. of Amici Curiae American Booksellers Association, et al., at 12-17; Br. of Amici Curiae First Amendment Scholars, at 9-19. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 6:27 am
</strong></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p><a href=’ http://palegaladvice.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-infographic/’><img src=’http://palegaladvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/traumatic-brain-injury-Infographic.jpeg’ alt=’Traumatic Brain Injury Infographic’ width=’540px’ border=’0′ /></a></p><br… [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 6:27 am
</strong></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p><a href=’ http://palegaladvice.com/blog/traumatic-brain-injury-infographic/’><img src=’http://palegaladvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/traumatic-brain-injury-Infographic.jpeg’ alt=’Traumatic Brain Injury Infographic’ width=’540px’ border=’0′ /></a></p><br… [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:10 am
” Appellant Br. at 12. [read post]
19 Dec 2012, 8:31 pm
” Reply Br. 10. [read post]
