Search for: "Does 1-100 "
Results 981 - 1000
of 12,655
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2011, 6:18 am
I’m going to lay this out quickly despite not being 100% certain because it’s a language-based argument and I assigned DFW’s Tense Present this week and so this is the sort of thing on my mind and because D.O.M. said I could scribble this out on the blog as long as I make it clear that he does not endorse any of it. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 5:00 am
Our DUI accident attorneys know that drunk-driving is 100% preventable so there is no excuse for a DUI arrest in our opinion. [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 11:00 am
- that A 100(c) corresponds to A 123(2) only and does not cover A 123(3).Now it is true that until recent times, there would not have been any possible reason to oppose a patent on the ground of A 123(3) because there was no way of extending the protection conferred during the opposition period. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Since, however, this is not an issue in the present case, there is no need to elaborate further on the interpretation of this feature in claim 1.[2.6] In summary, the board therefore does not see any reason to overturn the OD’s decision not to admit the new ground under A 100(b).Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.To have a look at the file wrapper, click here. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 5:55 am
One size does not fit all. [read post]
6 Oct 2024, 11:41 am
After SB 1, energy suppliers are prohibited from calling these offerings “100% renewable. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
2 May 2018, 1:10 am
Notice of opposition was filed against the granted patent, the opponent requesting revocation of the patent in its entirety on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step (Articles 54(2) and 56 EPC and Article 100(a) EPC), lack of sufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC) and added subject-matter (Article 100(c) EPC).III. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 1:13 pm
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board addressed issues relating to: 1. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
- does not prepare a business lawyer for a life of practice. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The description does not provide the skilled person with any useful guidance. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 3:01 am
It does not always work that way. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 7:13 am
§ 2371b(d)(1). [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 9:10 am
The headcount does include the owner of a business if the owner works in the business, but it does not include independent contractors. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 10:46 pm
Does this also apply to CPD 32.5(1)(b) in its current form? [read post]
20 May 2020, 6:06 pm
How does it feel, youtube? [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 11:03 am
However, as acknowledged by the appellant itself, this re-filing does not fall under the grounds for opposition listed in A 100 EPC 1973, which may lead to revocation of the patent in opposition proceedings according to A 102(1) EPC 1973. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:01 pm
Marginal employment refers to a job that does not pay enough to put the Veteran over the poverty line. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 12:18 pm
As many of the experts quoted in the Forbes article indicate, the Act does not provide an “easy write-off”. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 2:21 am
Since none of the details mentioned are present in the description, the description alone does not directly and unambiguously disclose these details to the person skilled in the art.The same is true for Figure 1. [read post]
