Search for: "I.C." Results 141 - 160 of 275
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2012, 1:38 pm
Indianapolis, IN - A bill pending in the Indiana General Assembly would make changes to Indiana's Right of Publicity Law, I.C. 32-36-1-8. [read post]
21 Jan 2012, 1:48 pm by David Thomson
 As I stated in a post last week, I am especially impressed by Discovery Practice by David I.C. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 7:57 am by Michael Fischer
Das Bundesgericht hat entschieden, dass trotz Austritt aus der Kirche kein Anspruch auf Reduktion des Kantonssteueranteils um den Anteil der Pfarrerlöhne am Gesamtaufwand des Kantons (i.c. 0.813%) besteht.X. war aus der Kirche ausgetreten, weshalb sie auch keine Kirchensteuer bezahlte. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 12:00 am by SO Issues
JOHNSON In 1998, Johnson pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, a violation of I.C. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 6:58 am by David Vasella
Jedenfalls aber käme eine Anerkennungsvereinbarung nur dann überhaupt in Frage, wenn die strafbare Handlung für das Urteil nachweislich kausal war: Il n'y a pas lieu de décider, d'une façon générale, si l'ordre public matériel suisse s'oppose à la reconnaissance d'une décision étrangère qui repose sur une telle infraction (i.c. un faux témoignage), du moins lorsqu'il… [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Nor can stating a use that is new and not-obvious render an apparatus which is already known novel and inventive, see also the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 6th edition 2010, I.C.5.3.3 and the case law cited therein, in particular T 215/84, T 523/89, T 637/92. [3.2.1] The various versions of claim 1 are all directed at a protective case defined by the same physical features: circularly knitted, tubular body, elastic mouth section at one end, closing seam at the other. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 11:22 am
Indiana's current right of publicity law, I.C. 32-36-1 et seq., was enacted in 1994. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
In the board’s view, this feature introduces a limitation concerning the purpose of the claimed apparatus which distinguishes it from the devices known in the art at the relevant date.[5] According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see T 523/89 as well as further decisions cited in “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO”, chapter I.C.5.3.3), a statement of purpose made in a claim in respect of a product is to be interpreted as meaning that the claimed… [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Moreover, it is unknown whether the original revised version of 1994 – which has not been filed – was made available to the clients by the then product proprietor Mearl Corporation without any obligation of secrecy, or has been sent to the clients at all.Furthermore, the statement in document D15 according to which the product Biju® BVW was sold, without there being any evidence for a sale to a buyer who was not bound by an obligation of secrecy, is insufficient as proof for a prior… [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The material from which the segregation device is made is not relevant because it is not even mentioned in claim 1.Therefore, the indication of the field of application does not include any further technical features which could distinguish [the claimed device] from the device according to D1.[1.3.4] The question that remains to be answered is whether the device according to D1 is not suitable for the purpose given in claim 1, or if it would have to be modified in order to fulfil this purpose,… [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:48 pm by slemberg
Rothman notified Allied Interstate, AllianceOne, Bureau of Collection Recovery, I.C. [read post]