Search for: "Matter of G. C. ,"
Results 1341 - 1360
of 4,011
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2018, 3:00 am
" The City contended that such documents fell within the statutory exemption for inter-agency and intra-agency materials under FOIL, citing Public Officers Law §87[2][g]. [read post]
2 May 2018, 6:57 am
G. [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]
1 May 2018, 9:00 am
As a matter of fact, labeling errors may result in FDA enforcement action which could tarnish your company’s reputation and business. [read post]
29 Apr 2018, 7:41 am
McCluer, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3.William G. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 1:44 pm
The county court trial divisions presiding over misdemeanor DUI and DWAI cases are as follows: Division C, Judge Burback; Division E, Judge Carpenter; Division B, Judge Fisch; Division F, Judge Moore; Division G, Judge Randall; Division D, Judge Sargent; Division A, Judge Stuart; Division H, Judge Vance; Division J, Judge Woodford. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 1:44 pm
The county court trial divisions presiding over misdemeanor DUI and DWAI cases are as follows: Division C, Judge Burback; Division E, Judge Carpenter; Division B, Judge Fisch; Division F, Judge Moore; Division G, Judge Randall; Division D, Judge Sargent; Division A, Judge Stuart; Division H, Judge Vance; Division J, Judge Woodford. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 7:39 am
The existence of such a trade practice or understanding is a matter of fact and would have to be proven by evidence. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 9:00 pm
The existence of such a trade practice or understanding is a matter of fact and would have to be proven by evidence. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:20 am
However, only example G of table 1 disclosed a composition with the optional alloying element V. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:20 am
However, only example G of table 1 disclosed a composition with the optional alloying element V. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The opposition was based on Article l00(a) together with 52(1), 54(1) and 56 EPC and Articles 100(b) and (c) EPC. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The opposition was based on Article l00(a) together with 52(1), 54(1) and 56 EPC and Articles 100(b) and (c) EPC. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 2:07 am
The application was refused by the examining division because the applicant's main request did not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC and Rule 42(1)(c) EPC.Auxiliary requests 1 - 3, which were filed during the oral proceedings before the examining division, were not admitted into the procedure because they were considered to contravene Rule 137(3) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC.III. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 2:07 am
The application was refused by the examining division because the applicant's main request did not meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC and Rule 42(1)(c) EPC.Auxiliary requests 1 - 3, which were filed during the oral proceedings before the examining division, were not admitted into the procedure because they were considered to contravene Rule 137(3) EPC and Rule 116(1) EPC.III. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 3:09 am
The conspiring itself is a federal crime; it does not matter whether any crime was ever committed as long as the collaboration took place. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 1:46 pm
It doesn’t matter if the stock went up and down a hundred times in the middle. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 12:11 am
The board agrees with the appellant that this opinion is not in line with Catchword 2 of T 172/03 (as also relied upon in the Guidelines for Examination G-VII, 2), unless one interprets the expression "technically relevant" in that Catchword in a trivial manner. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 12:11 am
The board agrees with the appellant that this opinion is not in line with Catchword 2 of T 172/03 (as also relied upon in the Guidelines for Examination G-VII, 2), unless one interprets the expression "technically relevant" in that Catchword in a trivial manner. [read post]
