Search for: "1-16 Does"
Results 821 - 840
of 19,041
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2007, 9:35 pm
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal that it… [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 6:16 am
Admissibility of the appeal1.1 In a situation such as the present case in which the request filed in the appeal proceedings does not expressly identify the subject of the appeal and the extent to which the decision is to be amended, as required by Rule 99(1)(c),(2) EPC, the latter can be ascertained from the appellant's overall submissions (see T 727/91, Reasons 1; T 273/92, Reasons 1).1.2 On the one hand, the appellant stated in its notice of appeal that it… [read post]
1 Dec 2016, 6:42 am
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 does not exclude the degradation (Abbau) of the proteins in a subsequent step because the claim is directed at a process comprising the steps (a), (b), and (c). [12] The argument of the [patent proprietor] according to which document D14 does not contain any reference to a clear solution is not persuasive either. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 1:46 pm
Old 1§ 102 and § 103 apply to: (a) applications filed before March 16, 2013; and (b) continuations and divisionals of applications filed before March 16, 2013. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 4:43 pm
The permanent injunction however does not prevent the filing of DACA renewals by those who are already receiving benefits under the DACA program. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 8:18 pm
Paragraph 1:1. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
§ 16(b). [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 1:07 pm
16. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 3:05 pm
§ 2.34(a)(2) (some CFR provisions establish federal crimes in national parks - see 16 USC § 3) and has three elements: (1) using language, an utterance, or a gesture, or engaging in a display or act; (2) that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace; and (3) having the intent to cause or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk of public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence.… [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 12:52 pm
Update [2007-3-22 16:21:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Procedural vote passes with 224 votes. 1 GOP vote, Walter Jones presumably. [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 4:16 am
On 16 February 2023 Impress, the Press Recognition Panel approved regulator of the UK press, launched its new Standards Code and Guidance (the new Code and Guidance will come into force on 1 April 2023). [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 1:26 pm
It breaks down into three domains, each of which presents major problems for translators:1. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Requester stated: “In an effort to avoid any appearance of non-compliance, the Requester does not formally submit these four grounds for rejection against original claim 1 but rather leaves such a consideration to the discretion of the Patent Office. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 10:09 am
” ECF No. 83-1 at 4.Davi v. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 9:25 pm
If you do, and the judge does not so advance, you have an excellent argument for waiving the 1 year window requirement when you are finally heard. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 7:33 pm
Jan. 16, 2015); see also False Claims Act Redline, HelmersMartins, www.fcalawfirm.com/blog/false-claims-act-redline/ (redlining the pre- and post-amendment versions of the public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)). [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 7:33 pm
Jan. 16, 2015); see also False Claims Act Redline, HelmersMartins, www.fcalawfirm.com/blog/false-claims-act-redline/ (redlining the pre- and post-amendment versions of the public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4)). [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 4:27 am
It correctly does not state that applications cannot be made to register JE SUIS CHARLIE, either by itself or in combination with figurative features, or that such applications will automatically be rejected on the grounds of Articles 7(1)(b) or 7(1)(f). [read post]
