Search for: "Does 1-29" Results 1781 - 1800 of 12,789
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Dec 2022, 8:31 am
McDonald contends that the Board erred in rejecting reissue claims 1–7, 10, 12–14, and 29–38 under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
13 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
However, this aspect cannot be taken into consideration for the definition of the problem to be solved, as claim 1 of the main request does not define the concentration of the taxane to be administered to the patient. [read post]
14 May 2008, 2:14 am
Here's what I know -- from which you can discern what I don't know.1. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 10:54 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Proving a November 10 demonstration does not establish reduction to practice prior to October 29. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 2:25 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Although the legislative history does not specifically discuss a time limitation, it is significant that the Legislature chose to continue applying the 29 November 1985 date originally used to allow for consideration of out-of-state convictions. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 1:12 pm by Chris
The court outlines that based on Article 29(1) of Regulation No 40/94 it is evident that the Community legislature did not intend to discriminate between marks for goods and marks for services. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 11:09 am
§ 29-39-104 that went into effect for all actions that accrue on or after October 1, 2011. [read post]
31 Jul 2024, 5:02 pm by Bill Marler
Sick people’s samples were collected from May 29, 2024, to July 12, 2024. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 7:10 pm by Bill Marler
Sick people’s samples were collected from May 29, 2024, to July 12, 2024. [read post]