Search for: "DOES 1-54"
Results 661 - 680
of 3,416
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jul 2012, 11:01 am
(my emphasis)The Board found this claim to lack clarity:[1] Claim 1 of the sole request submitted during the OPs does not meet the requirements of Article 84 EPC 1973. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, the requirements of A 54 are not fulfilled.To read the whole decision (in German), click here. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 11:00 am
The subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent in suit is therefore not anticipated by the single-step process according to examples 4 and 5 of document D1 and meets the requirement of A 54. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:31 am
You see within ½ mile of the jail are the following: 1 college, 1 elementary school, 1 daycare, 1 senior citizen apartment complex, and numerous neighborhoods. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:56 am
See Brief for Petitioners 54–56; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 31–32. [read post]
9 Mar 2021, 3:41 am
The referred question was: Does the embedding of a work – which is available on a freely accessible website with the consent of the rightholder – in the website of a third party by way of framing constitute communication to the public of that work within the meaning of Article 3(1) of [the InfoSoc] Directive 2001/29/EC where it occurs through circumvention of protection measures against framing taken or instigated by the rightholder? [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 12:18 pm
Super. at 54. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:40 am
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
The transformation of a claim directed to the use of a substance or composition for a certain purpose into a Swiss-type claim or a purpose-limited product claim pursuant to A 54(5) leads to an extension of the scope of protection.4. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:02 am
Graham, 54 AD3d 1056, 865 N.Y.S2d 259 (2d Dept 2008) (conviction for violating PL 195.05 upheld where the lawful act was a legitimate traffic stop); See also (People v. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 11:37 am
The BCUC has approved an interim rate increase of 4.9% effective November 1, 2013 and will make a final decision after a public hearing process. [read post]
14 Mar 2009, 5:50 am
Apostille or legalisation are usually called for; so does translation. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 10:22 am
One is to compare the way USNWR does the ranking (separating indebtedness from percent incurring debt) with one metric that combines them. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 10:22 am
One is to compare the way USNWR does the ranking (separating indebtedness from percent incurring debt) with one metric that combines them. [read post]
28 Apr 2016, 11:29 am
I agree with Lord Hoffmann that the new defence is “available to anyone who publishes material of public interest in any medium”: Jameel, at para. 54. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
It does not mention “loss of control” and “free disposal”.It does however make clear, to those familiar with board of appeal practice, that the criterion cited in the decision (point [3.3], second paragraph) as established case law, namely that even the theoretical possibility of access is novelty-destroying for an invention, sets higher confidentiality requirements than criteria such as “loss of control” and “free disposal”. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 9:51 am
Id. at 54. [read post]
29 Dec 2013, 7:24 pm
Final ruling: 1. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 9:58 am
Biomet, Inc., 236 F.3d 1342, 1348 n.1 (Fed. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 10:43 am
Parker, 54 N.C. [read post]
