Search for: "C. G., Matter of"
Results 641 - 660
of 3,571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Mar 2011, 1:19 am
It does not matter whether or not the claim comprises additional non-technical features, which may charachterize the claimed teaching. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 12:54 pm
Magistrate Judge Gerrilyn G. [read post]
10 Jul 2010, 11:02 am
The examination would then have been conducted on the basis of all claims (see T 631/97 and the Guidelines for Examination, C-III, 7.10, and C-VI, 3.1-4). [3.5.3] The equivalent rule under the EPC 2000 is R 164. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 7:59 am
The High Court criticised the basis on which the Tribunal had approached this matter. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 7:59 am
The High Court criticised the basis on which the Tribunal had approached this matter. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 7:48 am
The author of this blog is Douglas C. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 7:56 am
This article was written by Ellen C. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 7:56 am
This article was written by Ellen C. [read post]
7 Jul 2007, 9:20 am
The State Government also filed an affidavit consenting to follow the practice which was adopted for the previous academic year in the matter of admission of students by private colleges and making it clear that they do not insist that the self-financing colleges should follow the single window system. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 7:54 am
Janice Clark (NFP) Steven G. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 1:08 pm
131.3(g)." [read post]
2 Mar 2022, 5:05 am
.), written by Judge Carolyn Nichols and joined by Judges Mary Jane Bowes and James Gardner Colins: Richard G. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 11:47 am
§ 1825(g). [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 8:29 am
Walter G. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 8:47 am
Ambrose Harris (Procurator Fiscal), HM Advocate v G : HM Advocate v M [2011] UKSC 43 (6 October 2011) – read judgment Reliance on evidence that emerged from questioning a person without access to a lawyer did not invariably breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. [read post]
1 May 2013, 6:38 am
Florida Statute § 741.30(5)(c). [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 3:07 pm
In a footnote on page 15 of its reply brief, the Government notes that an amicus brief filed by certain Professors of Second Amendment Law accepts "the validity of Section 922(g)(8)(C)(i) because it 'requires a judicial finding of dangerousness' but reject[s] Section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) because it does not require a specific finding. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 8:14 am
Claim 1 is therefore, open to clarity objections arising from this amendment (decision G 3/14, OJ 2015, 102, Order).2. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
Wyrick, C. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
A 56[3.1] The subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent in suit relates to the (a) use of valaciclovir in the manufacture of a medicament (b) for oral administration (c) for the suppression of recurrent genital herpes in a human host (d) at a once daily dose (e) of 500 mg. [3.2] Document D5 represents the closest state of the art. [read post]
