Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 1281 - 1300
of 20,066
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2017, 11:20 pm
The Case Law Book (8th edition, July 2016) provides in section I.C.2.8.5 "Proof of common general knowledge": "Where an assertion that something is common general knowledge is challenged, the person making the assertion must provide proof that the subject-matter in question is in fact common general knowledge (T 438/97, T 329/04, T 941/04, T 690/06). [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 7:19 pm
Gibbs & Allyson B. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 9:25 am
Seems unlikely it’s just b/c the Fed. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 9:04 pm
Or, to return to the beginning, B+. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 10:14 am
AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 1:56 pm
Posted By: Robert B. [read post]
2 May 2016, 8:30 am
Ultimately, the court remanded the case for the state to prove both, but without the presumption in R.C. 2933.81(B), which it [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 10:13 am
The above source notes that the goal of “getting from point A to point B” on varied matters is often easier said than done. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 7:50 am
[B]ut it is also on individual players to conduct themselves with respect for the sport we love so dearly....I don't love tennis. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 3:52 am
All that matters is the bottom line: the outcome, and whether we like it. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Sometimes the Boards indicated that R 65(2) EPC 1973 was preferred to R 88 EPC 1973 as it was more specific (T 715/01 [9]); (b) decisions in which R 88 EPC 1973 was used as a legal basis for the corrections (T 814/98); (c) decisions in which correction was refused because the notice of appeal contained no remediable errors but rather a mistake of law. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 3:02 pm
According to the opponents, that case was similar to the present one. [11.9] The case law also mentions decision T 168/99 [1], in which it was decided that withdrawal of subject-matter (there, of the granted claims before the OD had commented on them) did not necessarily mean that it had formally been abandoned. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
By Kent B. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 2:16 pm
AT&T Mobility, LLC, the Third Circuit reversed a district court’s determination that notice by publication would be sufficient. [read post]
10 Apr 2010, 7:47 pm
Dist.LEXIS 34716, senior federal judge Maurice B. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 10:00 am
Bio: Miles B. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 6:15 pm
Darrin T. [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:01 pm
” The case relating to OT2 is therefore also not proceedings which correspond to A 105(1)(a) or (b). [read post]
14 May 2011, 11:01 am
” T 457/02 [4.2-3] : “The OD considered that D8 was novelty- destroying for the subject-matter of Claim 1 because the use of the term “comprising” did not exclude the possibility of additional steps between steps (a) and (b) of the claim. [read post]
8 May 2015, 1:26 pm
AT&T (Fed. [read post]
