Search for: "MATTER OF R R A K"
Results 81 - 100
of 3,915
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2023, 6:40 am
The sign on the left says ‹Black Lives Matter› and the sign on the right says ‹No Justice, No Peace›. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 7:03 pm
By Adrienne R. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 10:00 am
This gets confusing since it is not simply a matter of deciding how much was contributed during marriage. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 6:01 am
Kapnick, Troy K. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 9:19 am
Eileen R. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 3:05 pm
MSSA and MRSA which, according to the patent, were also important ophthalmic pathogens. [2.3] In point 3.4.1 of the decision under review, the Board assessed the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter using the problem-solution approach based on the facts referred to above. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
Thus, the exception mentioned in R 106 seems to apply and this Board considers that the petition is at least not clearly inadmissible. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:46 pm
The State Bar of Texas Legal Services to the Poor in Criminal Matters Committee announced Claire Buetow as the winner of the Michael K. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
The value of OPs is that matters may as a result be clarified and the BoA may ultimately be satisfied that a party’s position is the right one, although it was not so satisfied by the written submissions alone. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
The boards of appeal have constantly held that determining whether a substantial procedural violation justifying the reimbursement of the appeal fee has occurred in first instance proceedings (R 103(1) (a) EPC, R 67 EPC 1973), is to be decided exclusively on an objective basis (J 7/83, J 32/95, T 405/96 making reference to further decisions, T 400/02). [read post]
12 Jan 2023, 8:32 am
Attorney John R. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 1:10 pm
The father objected, claiming this violates his parental rights with regard to R and G. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 2:19 pm
Skinner, R. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
In this context, [opponent 2] made reference to R 43 and R 139. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
It is also the applicant who receives the EPO communications regarding the European patent application (see for example R 55, 56(1), first sentence, and (2), second sentence, R 58, R 60, R 65, R 69(1), R 70(2) and A 94(3) together with R 71). [9] The provisions of the EPC foresee a few exceptional situations where, apart from the applicant, a person other than the applicant (so-called “third party”) is involved as a party in… [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 10:20 am
K-TEC v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 6:47 pm
Richard K. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 6:47 pm
Richard K. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
She then says: “I apparently inadvertently changed in our file K 1959 EP the name of the opponent to ‘Kennametal Technologies GmbH’ rather than adding them as an additional contact”.[1.4] The public file shows that thereafter and until 23 October 2012 […] all communications in this matter from Prinz & Partner referred to Kennametal Technologies as Opponent I. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
R 56 is applicable and the said drawing can be filed later in accordance with the procedure laid down in R 56. [read post]
