Search for: "Does 1-88"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 2,128
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
As pointed out in T 472/88 [2], in the statement contained in decisions T 227/88 and T 301/87: “fresh objections based on A 84 are not allowed if such objections did not arise out of the amendments so made”, the word “arise” should be broadly construed. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 7:36 am
In light of this ruling, employers may want to consider these practical pointers: 1. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
According to Alston, in the 4 1/2 years prior to June 2008 the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed 88% of jury verdicts that favored wronged victims. [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
(G 2/88 [4]). [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 8:36 am
§1325(b)(1); see also §1325(b)(1) (2000 ed.). [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 11:13 pm
For example, the top five Google search results for any search term get 88% of the clicks. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 2:35 pm
It recalled that the object of measures adopted on the basis of Article 95(1) EC must genuinely be to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market (Case C? [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 10:46 am
Of these 97 reexaminations, 85 or 88% were ex parte and 12 or 12% were inter partes. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
As the prior art does not contain a heating with all the features of claim 1, in particular with the characterising feature of new claim 1, the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the main request is novel over the prior art. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 1:58 pm
Does Canada plan the same? [read post]
5 Jun 2010, 1:20 pm
Lindsay Ellis, to allegations she acted improperly when, in March, she approved payments of almost $800,000 from the estate of 88 year old Marie Long. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
I believe that the amendment from a claim directed to a membrane to a claim directed to an artificial kidney comprising such a membrane does not go against this guiding principle.What do you think? [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 6:15 am
However, this does not mean that the action is not on the contract. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 3:37 am
Thus, dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) was not warranted. [read post]
27 May 2010, 7:38 am
… In sum, the Rule of Reason does not support a defense based on the assumption that competition itself is unreasonable. [read post]
26 May 2010, 8:50 am
§2000e-2(k)(1)(A). [read post]
21 May 2010, 8:13 pm
She wrote:[11] The basic outline for that analysis can be summarized this way:1. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:19 pm
Ed. 2d 88 (1997); Chandok v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 7:29 am
Does that redally add up to $1 million a year’s worth of in-kind value? [read post]
11 May 2010, 3:02 pm
On 1 November 2001 an auction took place where most of the equipment was sold to over one hundred different parties […]. [read post]
