Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 601 - 620
of 20,058
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2015, 12:00 am
Does she talk as if she has experience with this type of matter? [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 12:00 am
Does she talk as if she has experience with this type of matter? [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Thus, the opposition ground according to A 100(c) would not hold against the subject-matter of claim 1 disclosing said amendment. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1981/12 [catchword, point 1] the Board considered, in somewhat similar circumstances, that the correct basis for the refusal of the application was that the applicant was not entitled to pursue an application based on subject matter not searched by the EPO. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 12:18 pm
Margaret Witt wrapped up yesterday, and Judge Ronald B. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 4:45 am
The Federal Circuit decided to go a different route and broke with that line of cases, specifically saying: "We now conclude that this interpretation of section 271(b) is wrong as a matter of statutory construction, precedent, and sound patent policy." [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 12:16 pm
Stevens and Scalia thought it wasn’t (although Scalia said it didn’t matter either way). [read post]
2 Dec 2018, 11:37 am
§ 2252(a)(4)(B). [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 7:30 am
So don’t fall for the 83(b) Blunder. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
§ 973(b)(2). [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
” In part B of the example of D1 paraformaldehyde was used. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 2:28 pm
It does matter practically, but shouldn't. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
A 100 exhaustively sets out all the grounds of revocation that can be relied on, so the lack of any such ground of revocation suggests that the significant factor is the subject-matter at the time of grant and not whether the subject-matter of the divisional application as filed met the requirement of not extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:39 pm
So that it can win its case - so that it can win the right to show what it insists on calling mere "materials"-MASS MoCA is pushing for an extremely narrow reading of the statute (it doesn't prevent the display of unfinished work, etc.). [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 4:30 am
But we don't get to wear the robe. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 12:29 pm
After finishing another matter she said, "can I call your case? [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 4:33 pm
It doesn’t really matter that a party never intended to be bound. [read post]
28 Apr 2018, 2:13 pm
Anything else just doesn’t make sense. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 7:55 am
“[T]he failure to comply with a statutory requirement or prerequisite does not negate the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
J 10/07, T 1366/04, T 1279/05). [read post]
