Search for: "Matter of T S B"
Results 101 - 120
of 19,484
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
This first embodiment, therefore, corresponds point by point to the wording of claim 1 in suit and, contrary to [opponent 1’s] assertion, falls within the scope of said claim. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 9:51 am
This posting covers Links on the LawPundit Main Page : (2) (b) The Law Blogroll - B:Bag and Baggage by Denise M. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the knowledge of the method and the conditions for determining the parameter is required for the parameter to be unambiguously defined (see T 412/02 [5.8-9]). [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:28 am
Finally, the Federal Circuit notes that “[b]ecause ‘encrypted communications’ and ‘program code’ are not being claimed here for the content they communication, they are not printed matter,” and thus, “[t]he inquiry stops there; if the claim element is not printed matter, we need not consider whether it has a functional or structural relation to its substrate. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 2:17 pm
" The Supreme Court of Texas today held the non-specification of the actual employer as a party to the arbitration agreement didn't matter. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 5:25 am
In Matter of Chandel B. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
An assignment of the priority rights of the inventors Wang and Zhong to the appellant or the University of Western Ontario had not taken place prior to the filing of the PCT application.The subject-matter of claim 1 (thus) lacked novelty over the disclosure in documents D20 and D21.Considering document D21 as representing the closest prior art, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 lacked an inventive step.The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 2… [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The EPC’s provisions do not give the appellants the power to set aside the decision under appeal of its own volition, which would obviously be the case if it had the opportunity to modify its requests beyond the subject-matter of the first instance proceedings. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:14 am
I don't know much about § 10(b) or its extra-territorial application, the subject of today's decision in Morrison v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 9:48 pm
No, in one sense it doesn't matter what you call it. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
A detailed explanation of the opponent’s case was received only on January 28 (Monday). [read post]
21 Nov 2007, 3:40 pm
He's not related (but it is the same last name). [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:54 pm
Also, keep in mind that the scope of cross-examination includes the subject matter during direct examination and “matters affecting the witness’s credibility. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 4:54 pm
Also, keep in mind that the scope of cross-examination includes the subject matter during direct examination and “matters affecting the witness’s credibility. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 1:13 am
The examining division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request and auxiliary requests 1 and 3 to 5 was excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53(b) EPC as it constituted an essentially biological process for the production of plants. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Since [INC1] was published on 10 August 2000 it is pertinent prior art against the present application for subject-matter having the filing date as its effective date which is the case for claim 1.[3.2] Incorporated applications [INC2] and [INC3] do not fulfil the requirements set out in T 737/90 [3] and Case Law, 7th ed. 2013, II. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 2:12 pm
Onna is unique because it is cloud native and collaboration focused; it doesn’t matter if companies are integrating 20 applications or 200. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The Board then stated:[4] In summary, the board finds that claim 1 of both requests relates to the technical implementation of excluded matter in the form of game rules. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 3:39 am
Applicant further testified that he agreed to enter the program because he didn’t want to go to prison. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 10:24 am
The court’s answer is no: “a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal from the judgment in foreclosure on the issue of standing. [read post]
