Search for: "T. T."
Results 721 - 740
of 881,534
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2019, 8:57 am
T-Mobile says the opposite: By combining with Sprint, it can reduce costs and lower prices. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
In line with established case law of the boards of appeal, a patent application, being a legal document, may be its own dictionary and may define technical terms and determine how a skilled person has to interpret a specific term when used in the description or claims (see e.g. decisions T 500/01 [6] and T 61/03 [4.2]). [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 4:15 pm
We know that it didn’t. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 2:38 pm
James T. [read post]
18 Oct 2018, 4:18 pm
” Continue reading → The post Audrey T – Dallas, TX Car Wreck Lawyer Review appeared first on Dallas Auto Accident Attorneys Blog. [read post]
26 Oct 2022, 10:04 am
That’s exactly what they did with the so-called “SAFE-T Act” in Illinois. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 3:05 pm
The Board won’t have it that way.Claim 1 of the main request read:Device (Vorrichtung) to convey work pieces, particularly suspended, plate-shaped work pieces like metal sheets or plates with at least a conveyor belt (1) revolving around a retaining device (Haltevorrichtung) (3) for conveyance of work pieces (W) adhering thereto, wherein for retaining the work pieces on the conveyor belt (1) a controllable or regulatable installation (Einrichtung) (6) for generation of negative… [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
There is an interesting final remark on the composition of the Examining Division (ED).[3] It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that for a decision to be reasoned it must contain a logical sequence of arguments and that all facts, evidence and arguments essential to the decision must be discussed in detail (see for instance T 278/00 [2-4]; T 1997/08 [4]).[4] The Boards of Appeal have consistently decided further that a request for a decision based on the current… [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The first two conditions of R 76(2)(c) are therefore clearly fulfilled.[1.4] With respect to the last condition (facts and evidence), according to the established case law the notice of opposition must indicate the “when”, “what” and under “what circumstances”, in particular “to whom”, the alleged public prior use was made available (T 522/94 [headnote IV, 10, 12, 20 to 25]; T 328/87 [3.3]).[1.5] In the present case, the [opponent]… [read post]
16 Aug 2024, 9:25 am
T-Mobile also failed to report some of the incidents in a timely manner to Cfius, further violating the agreement. [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 1:05 am
Wassup, T-Mo? [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 10:18 am
You Were Partially Responsible for Causing the Accident So You Can’t Recover Compensation While there are a few states where you’ll be barred from pursuing compensation if you contributed to causing the truck accident, California isn’t part of this group. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 11:01 am
T 506/91 and T 54/00. [1.2] The decision in T 386/04 referred to by the patent proprietor is not relevant since in that case the proprietor’s main request had been refused by the OD so that the proprietor was indisputably prejudiced by the decision; the question in the appeal was the admissibility of its main request, not the admissibility of its appeal. [read post]
6 Sep 2024, 11:46 am
If T-1 nonimmigrant status is granted , individuals will receive an EAD with category A16; and if T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 or T-6 nonimmigrant status is granted, individuals will receive an EAD with category C25. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 2:19 pm
But imagine if AT&T also rejected Apple’s idea? [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
They clearly do not figure in the plating solution of D1. [2.5.2] Although the definition “comprising” of claim 1 does not exclude such additional components the present application is absolutely silent with respect to an optional addition of such a chelating agent like HEDTA, or of surfactants such as said Chemeen T-15 or Igepal Co-730 (compare point 2.3.1 above), let alone that such components should be added in such considerable amounts. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 12:00 am
“Sir, as much as I love your city, I really don’t want to be here on the sixth,” Woodward declares. [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Reasoning as in T 708/00, an objection under R 137(5) should not have been made. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
This is also true where an error would not have led to a different outcome of the proceedings (see in particular T 144/94 [4]; T 12/03 [4.5]; T 17/97 [8.2]).[1.7] As to the request for remittal to the first instance, under the provisions of Article 11 RPBA the board must remit the case to the department of first instance if fundamental deficiencies are apparent, unless special reasons present themselves for doing otherwise.In the present case, considering that the… [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 986/93 [2.4] and T 620/08 [3.4]). [read post]
