Search for: "Does 1-96"
Results 661 - 680
of 2,165
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Feb 2019, 5:00 am
Figure 1: Prior Knowledge of Principal Languages Since 1980 One might fairly question the significance of this finding. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 2:21 pm
They acknowledged exceptions, such as “upskirting” or the taking of photos or videos up a woman’s skirt, which could occur in a public place (CA, para. 96). [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 5:00 am
The following states allow common law marriage: Alabama Colorado District of Columbia Georgia (if created before 1/1/97) Idaho (if created before 1/1/96) Iowa Kansas Montana New Hampshire (for inhisitance purposes only) Ohio (if created before 10/10/91) Oklahoma Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05) Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Thise is no common law divorce which can often lead to problems regarding child custody, financial… [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 2:01 am
T 0455/13 (Tolperisone/Sanochemia) confirmed that, purity does not confer novelty failing the exceptional circumstances defined in T 0990/96 (r. 3.9).However, a decision of the TBA last year indicated that the special criteria for assessing the novelty of purity may be losing favour in a similar fashion to that of the “purposive selection” test. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 10:53 pm
Take away 1 – Think your argument through to the end. [read post]
5 Feb 2019, 6:00 am
Under the size of transaction test, the value of the assets in Canada or the annual gross revenue from sales (generated from those assets) in or from Canada of the target operating business and, if applicable, its subsidiaries, must be greater than C$96 million. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 2:00 am
While 96% of expecting mothers say that they are excited to go back to work after giving birth, fewer than 60% remain in the workforce after the first year often due to lack of proper postpartum support. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
96 Tex. [read post]
28 Jan 2019, 8:18 pm
BACKGROUNDThe facts recited in this opinion are the court's findings based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at a one-day trial held on October 1, 2018. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 7:26 am
And so the Board affirmed the refusal under Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 of the Lanham Act. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 4:42 am
Only a purity of 97.91% could be obtained.- Consequently, D2/D3 did not anticipate the subject-matter of claim 1 at issue.- The procedure described in example 16 of D1 led to amorphous LH having a purity of 97.91%, i.e. outside the range specified in claim 1 at issue.- The rationale developed in T 990/96 and T 728/98 was in conflict with the principle that for concluding lack of novelty, there must be a direct and unambiguous disclosure.- The purity level specified in… [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 7:58 pm
" Orascom and Natgasoline filed a response asserting that appellate jurisdiction exists because this case involves (1) an appeal from a final judgment; or (2) a statutorily authorized interlocutory appeal; or (3) a mandamus proceeding. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm
With its letter of 13 May 2016, the appellant filed a new main request and auxiliary requests 1 to 5. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 8:27 am
Section 32 should be amended to clarify that section 32(2) does not relieve an employer of the obligation to ensure meal breaks are provided as required by section 32(1), and applies when it is necessary to interrupt a meal break because of an emergency or other exceptional circumstance. [read post]
10 Jan 2019, 8:27 am
Section 32 should be amended to clarify that section 32(2) does not relieve an employer of the obligation to ensure meal breaks are provided as required by section 32(1), and applies when it is necessary to interrupt a meal break because of an emergency or other exceptional circumstance. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 4:06 pm
” Part 1 and Part 2 by Heather Rogers QC). [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 6:34 am
., 96 N.Y. 2d 222 (2001). [read post]
6 Jan 2019, 8:24 pm
That burden does not fall on the appellant. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 7:50 am
Consequently, the record does not contain enough evidence for this Court to determin [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 5:21 am
The Federal Patent Court furthermore found that Article 140k(1) Swiss Patent Act provides an exhaustive enumeration of the grounds of invalidity of an SPC, and that a wrongfully granted reestablishment of rights with respect to the time limit for filing an SPC (even if proven) does not constitute a ground of invalidity according to the Swiss Patent Act. [read post]
