Search for: "Cone v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 275
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The ED argued that the term 1/2 R(0,m) + R(m) was an essential feature of the invention because it was stated in the description of the parent application as originally filed: “The sum of quantities 1/2 R(0,m) and R(m) is the coning compensation and corresponds to the integration of the second and third terms in equation (2). [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 4:00 am
Iqbal (07-1015) and Friday in Cone v. [read post]