Search for: "In the Matter of T A-K and J A-K"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,031
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2023, 2:00 am
Gronvall (Johns Hopkins University), The Origins of COVID-19 — Why It Matters (and Why It Doesn’t), 388 New Eng. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 10:00 am
Nancy J. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:01 pm
,R-1 such that g.c.d {qj,p-1} = 1 and qj > 6, qj > q(j-1) for each j = 1, 2, ... [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 12:29 pm
J. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 5:49 pm
One of those symbols is a K for strike price. [read post]
27 May 2015, 11:59 am
But it’s not responsible to model instructional practices that can be used by some learners like college students and not by others like K-12. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
J 11/87 [3.3, 3.6]; J 27/94 [8)) and is not allowed to reverse these acts so that they can be considered as never filed (J 10/87 [12]; J 4/97 [2]).On the other hand, the Boards of Appeal considered that R 88 acknowledges as a further legal value the desirability of having regard to true as opposed to ostensible party intentions in legal proceedings (T 824/00 [6]) in appropriate circumstances. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
T 242/05 [2.1-3]). [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The point was repeated in J 9/12 [3]. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus, the Board came to the conclusion that the technical activity of step A did not interact with the mental activities of steps B to E to lead to a tangible technical result and therefore had to be ignored in the assessment of inventive step. [12] The Board considers that the present case clearly differs from the case underlying decision T 784/06. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 8:51 am
TPG, represented by CGSH (showing that the relationship probably isn’t on the rocks), bought out H&F and JMI’s stakes in Vertafore for $1.4 billion. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, A 84 (EPC 1973) together with R 29 (EPC 1973) requires a claim to give all the essential features that are necessary for defining the invention.This requirements has also been affirmed in decision G 1/07 [4.2.2; 3.3.1 – should read 4.3.1]. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
A statement was also provided by Ms J. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 3:16 am
In those instances where the Staff may seek an amendment to a Form 10-K/10-Q, the comments generally relate to a material disclosure matter rather than a mere matter of technical compliance. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 3:16 am
In those instances where the Staff may seek an amendment to a Form 10-K/10-Q, the comments generally relate to a material disclosure matter rather than a mere matter of technical compliance. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
” (emphasis added by the board).[2.2.4] It follows from this that the appeal proceedings are confined to the subject-matter of the first instance proceedings and therefore that the statement of grounds of appeal should at least discuss this subject-matter. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
”[2] The subject matter of decision G 1/09 was a divisional application filed after a decision refusing the parent application had been rendered, but before the appeal period had expired. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
By using a service external to his office for receiving and dispatching postal mail as explained above, the representative accepted that this external service would be treated as if it were his own in matters relating to the delivery of communications subject to deadlines.[5] In the Board’s opinion the situation of the present case is different to the one dealt with in decisions J 9/05 and J 18/05. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
J 10/01 [15-20], J 24/03 [4], J 18/04 [2.1], J 7/05 [3] and G 1/09 [3.2.4]. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1981/12 [catchword, point 1] the Board considered, in somewhat similar circumstances, that the correct basis for the refusal of the application was that the applicant was not entitled to pursue an application based on subject matter not searched by the EPO. [read post]
