Search for: "DOES I-X"
Results 5001 - 5020
of 7,403
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2011, 12:54 pm
I'm inventing X. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
Since independent claim 1 does not contain these features it does not meet the requirement following from A 84 taken in combination with R 43(1) and (3) that any independent claim must contain all the technical features essential to the definition of the invention. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:36 am
And I think that quite candidly is unconscionable, that it does shock the conscience of this court by how this entire agreement was handled. ... [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:33 am
And just at that moment up pops a message from the clerks about the latest ridiculous trick the LSC are using to delay payment: if the judge does not write “DISTRICT JUDGE X” or “HIS HONOUR JUDGE Y” beneath his / her signature the form is invalid and we don’t get paid. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 10:47 pm
This position has been supported by the Children's Guardian although he does not agree to X being named. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 3:34 pm
And while it's good news that only companies presenting explicit content will be able to buy .xxx URLs, Larson says that "if my brand does get registered as a .xxx domain name, I can be assured it's going be related to content I don't want associated with my brand. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 6:28 am
Does someone on your staff say this? [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 5:32 am
So, does her answer of "No," while being correct, merit any points? [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 10:49 pm
The facts of this case are reminiscent of law exam question.Edward X. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 6:00 am
In January 2011, Robert X. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 1:49 pm
He also noted that while the plain view doctrine “permits the seizure of” evidence in plain view, it “does not authorized a warrantless search of the item for concealed evidence. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 7:05 am
I doubt this. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 9:19 pm
Baniak to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.Edward X. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 5:58 am
This post does not necessarily reflect my thoughts and feelings nor do they represent any views held by Forbes. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 3:22 pm
I was looking at the 2011 OJD Base Fines Instructions and Charts and the 8 x 10 color glossies with circles and arrows and the word U-TURNS caught my eye. [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 12:14 pm
On the contentions urged, two questions arise for consideration: (i) What is the procedure to be followed by a court in implementing section 89 and Order 10 Rule 1A of the Code? [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 10:05 am
And you wonder why I think this might constitute an assault on innovation? [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 10:01 am
I heard somew [read post]
2 Sep 2011, 9:16 am
These are topics I cover briefly with students who take seminar classes from me, but I thought they might be useful to a broader audience. [read post]
