Search for: "MATTER OF B T B"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 20,068
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2010, 8:04 pm
In any event it was still great to spend time with those that matter the most. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 10:01 am
Background In order to make sure that the courts can continue to function, parties, court users, legal practitioners and judges have been forced to adopt an entirely new way of operating within a matter of days. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 10:42 am
§ 216(b). [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 8:53 am
The decision is B&B Medical Services, Inc.; Ed Medical, Inc., B-409705.4 (December 5, 2016), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681412.pdf. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
G 2/04 [3.2.5], and T 1178/04 [27, 31, 34]). [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
It justified this course of action as follows (English translation):“a) There are unjustifiably many auxiliary requests and those requests do not converge towards patentable subject-matter. [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 10:26 am
Third, determine (a) is negatively correlated with (b), and in such a way that we can reasonably conclude that (a) indeed caused (b).The problem here is that both (a) and (b) are hard measures to devise. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 1:14 am
” The Examining Attorney, citing TMEP §§ 1202.03 (a) and (b), maintained that “‘where consumers have been conditioned to recognize trademarks in a certain location, as on the breast area of a shirt, ornamental matter placed in a different location is less likely to be perceived as an indicator of source. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 8:00 pm
This could either have been an honest blunder amid the high-speed train wreck of the rapid-fire drafting, or it could have reflected diffidence about fully explaining things to the JCT - it doesn't matter now. [read post]
19 May 2017, 7:10 am
After T 910/03 it languished but occasionally reappeared.The Board refrains from referring the matter to the EBoA as it considers such referral not to be decisive in the present case, since according to the Board a same conclusion would be reached using both the essentiality test and the gold standard (being that the removal violates Art. 76(1) EPC).Entscheidungsgründe(...)2. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 3:27 pm
The reason is that the subject-matter disclosed in document D1 which is relevant here has been filed on 20 September 1993 in document D7 as an International Application published under the PCT on 14 April 1994. [read post]
5 Sep 2024, 3:14 am
Would the website be, even if there weren’t a magazine? [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
T 2/89 and T 328/87). [read post]
30 Oct 2022, 1:20 pm
It might not, but: It is a strong thing, in a case in which A asserts something was posted to B and B contends that he did not receive it, to find that a Court is satisfied that in fact the documentation was received. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
As a consequence, the subject-matter of claim 4 is to be considered novel within the meaning of A 54.To download the whole decision (in German), click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
This principle excludes the patent monopoly from being extended to subject-matter, [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 8:28 pm
We usually don’t know who is serving on a grand jury. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 2:16 am
Final thoughtsThe decision in T 1604/16 has been given the second-highest distribution classification of "B", meaning that it is considered significant enough by the Board to be distributed to Boards of Appeal chairmen and members. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 8:01 am
., B-413246 (Comp. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 10:03 pm
Edgewood did not object when they didn't get what they wanted in March of 2008. [read post]
