Search for: "State v. T. L. T."
Results 101 - 120
of 9,835
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2020, 12:42 pm
Devane v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 6:14 pm
Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 5:00 am
AT&T Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 325, 332; see State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. [read post]
16 May 2012, 6:03 am
Guido v. [read post]
20 May 2011, 9:02 am
Shortly after Supreme Court ruling in AT&T v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 1:54 pm
(Tammen v. [read post]
13 Jun 2019, 6:20 am
Nat'l Oceanic & Atmosphereric Admin. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 6:17 am
Arthur-Price v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
m; (d) at least one dispersing agent; and meeting the following conditions: (1) the percentage in weight of water based on the combined weight of the cement (a) and of the particles (c) lies within the 8-24% range; (2) the metal fibres have an average length l1 of at least 2 mm and an l1/Ø1 ratio of at least 20, Ø1 being the diameter of the fibres; (3) the ratio, V1/V, of the volume V1 of the metal fibres to the volume V of the organic fibres is greater than 1 and the… [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, it has to be established whether this use, which constitutes a method for treatment of the human body by surgery or therapy, confers novelty to the claimed subject-matter.[3.2] According to A 54(4), it is possible to acknowledge the novelty of a “… substance or composition, comprised in the state of the art, for use in a method referred to in A 53(c), provided that its use for any such method is not comprised in the state of the art” (emphasis… [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 9:25 pm
See United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm
(People v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
See T 670/95 [2], T 413/02 [3]. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 1:08 pm
Co. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 7:49 am
L. [read post]
27 Mar 2022, 4:56 pm
By Gerald L. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 2:51 pm
Noted lawyer L. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am
It was established case law, in particular in decisions T 714/00 and T 1067/97, that an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a feature originally disclosed only in combination with other features was permissible on condition that the introduced feature was not inextricably linked to other features of the combination, the removal of the omitted features passed the essentiality test, and the overall disclosure justified the generalising isolation of the feature and its… [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am
It was established case law, in particular in decisions T 714/00 and T 1067/97, that an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a feature originally disclosed only in combination with other features was permissible on condition that the introduced feature was not inextricably linked to other features of the combination, the removal of the omitted features passed the essentiality test, and the overall disclosure justified the generalising isolation of the feature and its… [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 2:36 pm
AFSCME, William L. [read post]
