Search for: "C. G., Matter of"
Results 121 - 140
of 3,608
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2013, 2:14 am
G v Scottish Ministers & Anor, heard 7 – 8 October 2013. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:38 pm
§§2703(c)(1)(d). [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
The Board held that the joint employer’s second amended charge, which alleged for the first time that the Association’s General Municipal Law (GML) §207-c hearing proposal was nonarbitrable under §209.4(g) of the Act, was untimely because it did not relate back to the joint employer’s original claim challenging the mandatory nature of the proposal under the Act. [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:00 am
Newell, New York, for respondents.Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard G. [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:00 am
Newell, New York, for respondents.Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Richard G. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, when deciding upon the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1, its technical features have to be determined first.[4] In accordance with decision G 2/88 [2.5], the technical features of a claim directed to a physical activity (e.g. method, process, use) are the physical steps which define such activity. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 1:13 am
The proprietor concluded that, accordingly, since only partial homologous recombination on limited portions of the respective genomes took place, the claimed method was not directed to a process for the production of plants involving sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants as referred to decisions G 2/07 and G 1/08, and that, consequently, decisions G 2/07 and G 1/08 did not apply and the claimed subject-matter did not fall within the exceptions of… [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 7:13 am
While exceptions to Rule 12(g)(2)’s timing requirement exist for challenges related to failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, there are no exceptions to Rule 12(g)(2) for venue. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 11:56 am
(g) The responsibilities each party will have with regard to any minor children they have in common. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 7:00 pm
(c) [More Than One Substitute Gift; Which One Takes.] [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The only condition defined in A 53(c) for a claim to be excluded from patentability is that it contains subject-matter being a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy or a diagnostic method. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 1:55 pm
This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. [read post]
16 Oct 2022, 7:33 pm
We see a lot of INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), INA 212(a)(3)(a), and INA 212(a)(3)(b) inadmissibility determinations following a mandamus “win. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
The ED denied the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 over the disclosure in document D1, a document relevant under A 54(3). [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:26 am
G v Scottish Ministers & Anor, heard 7 – 8 October 2013. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:34 pm
Pleil, Michael C. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 10:53 am
The Board’s decision in Matter of A-R-C-G, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014) held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship,” constitute a legally cognizable “particular social group,” (PGS.) and under the right circumstances, could be considered refugees and granted asylum in the United States. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 11:18 am
G. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, this particular approach to novelty only applies to claims directed at the use of a substance or composition for a method within the meaning of A 52(4) EPC 1973 (now A 53(c)).Claim 1 of the main request is drafted according to the model proposed by decision G 6/83, i.e. the use of a substance for the manufacture of a composition intended for a specific use. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
Here is the latest decision by the Enlarged Board, on corrections under R 140.The underlying case was as follows:The opposition (filed on September 10, 2004) had been based on the sole ground of added subject-matter (A 100(c)), the only argument being that in claim 1 of the patent the feature “means for initiating (56) a command related to a position of the device data” was not disclosed in the application as filed. [read post]
