Search for: "Does 1-10"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 37,103
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 5:00 am
This blog entry was originally posted on 6/10/16. [read post]
30 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
This blog entry was originally posted on 10/23/21. [read post]
23 Feb 2013, 11:10 am
Here are my calculation details: 1. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
Further, as regards the “gusset panel feature” the ED does not provide any (documentary) basis for its allegation that the skilled person would obviously provide them for obtaining a liquid-tight bottom, nor does it refute the hindsight-argument of the appellant. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 6:03 am
For example, the journal Health Affairs published a report in 2011 indicating that adverse events (medical mistakes or errors) happen in up to 1/3 of all hospital admissions, a figure 10 times greater than previous estimates. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 7:56 am
The frequency of such claims beg the questions (1) what exactly is a “confidential relationship,” and (2) what is the practical benefit to an objectant in establishing that one existed? [read post]
7 Jul 2019, 9:04 pm
Table 1: An Illustrative Risk-Informed Choice Set Option Prob Hazard Benefits Costs Net Benefits A 0.1 -$100 $10 $55 -45 B 0.3 -$80 $24 $40 -16 C 0.5 -$60 $30 $25 5 D 0.7 -$40 $28 $10 18 To see how this is so, consider a highly simplified and hypothetical choice scenario reflected in the table above. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 6:00 am
So what filings does this extension cover? [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 1:32 pm
June 1, 2011). [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 9:30 pm
Foreword, David Ibbetson (University of Cambridge, UK)Introduction, Norman Doe (Cardiff University, UK) and Stephen Coleman (Cardiff University, UK)1. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 12:00 pm
10. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 9:36 am
To explain this with an illustration, if the amount claimed is Rs. 10 lakhs, the deposit-in-call would be 10% thereof, that is, Rs. 1 lakh. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm
The claim pleaded in this case relied on harassment contrary to section 1(1) of the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act, which provides that a person must not “pursue a course of conduct (a) which amounts to harassment of another and (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another”. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 5:20 am
" Last year Forbes ranked Cleveland No.1 and this year it dropped to No.10. [read post]
16 Oct 2007, 6:32 am
Does the work of the cable guy or telephone repairman fall within the protection of Law Law § 240(1)? [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
This does not exclude the admission of new requests but makes it dependent on the fulfilment of certain requirements. [read post]
21 Nov 2010, 6:01 am
I do not in any way begrudge him the vindication of his reputation, but does this really require 10 million euro? [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 5:01 pm
As with yesterday's bracket, the worst of the worst ranked is #1. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 5:51 am
Just because in most reverse micelle systems the active ingredient is packaged into the interior of the micelle does not make it unclear that Appellant desires to do just the opposite.We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4-8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23-25, and 27-33 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
