Search for: "MATTER OF K C H" Results 61 - 80 of 619
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Aug 2013, 2:50 am by John L. Welch
H & C Milcor, Inc., f/k/a Aquatico of Texas, Inc., Opposition No. 91182064 (August 6, 2013) [precedential].The Board first considered Opposer's contention that Applicant impermissibly amended its original drawing to that shown above, materially altering the mark. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
c) and the intermediate commanded vertical altitude (hc) wherein the intermediate commanded vertical speed (? [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 11:14 am by WOLFGANG DEMINO
But, this case presents a unique circumstance in that the parties agreed in the MSA to submit “(a) all drafting disputes[,] (b) all issues regarding the interpretation of [the MSA,] and (c) all issues regarding the intent of the parties as reflected in the [MSA]” to the mediator and to make his decision on these matters binding. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In particular, the [patent proprietor] pointed out that - in example 3 of document D7 300 g/h of N-vinyl- 2-pyrrolidone were fed into the distillation column whereas only 185 g/h of pure N-vinyl-2- pyrrolidone were withdrawn from the column under steady state condition, which meant that only 62% of the N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidone was recovered […]. [read post]
13 Apr 2013, 10:14 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
Dollars (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013) Y is for Year-End Bonus. [read post]
18 Feb 2020, 6:01 am by Derek T. Muller
  990 Revenue Less Expenses   2017 2018 School A -$1,740,899 -$331,894 School B -$2,361,093 -$2,719,319 School C $2,099,592 -$264,383 School D $1,179,037 $4,668,804 School E -$1,340,958 -$3,453,295 School F $945,640 $29,612,793 School G -$3,270,424 -$1,111,501 School H -$2,510,861 -$8,155,296 School I $59,515,319 -$3,918,838 School J -$20,456,417 $7,985,200 School K -$1,649,617 -$1,661,162 School L … [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 8:39 am by WSLL
THE STATE OF WYOMING and MATTHEW H. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
If what is meant is (as understood by the ED in the present case) that there is no modification whatsoever of any other feature of the embodiment, than the condition is trivial and almost never fulfilled (for instance, when a different water level sensor is used […]).[2.9] Therefore, contrary to the opinion of the ED (and of the [applicant]), the Board considers the “three point or essentiality test” (cf. the Guidelines H-V 3.1 and H-V 3.2.1 (June 2012 edition))… [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The Board then stated:[4] In summary, the board finds that claim 1 of both requests relates to the technical implementation of excluded matter in the form of game rules. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
A statement was provided by Mr H. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 1:05 pm by PJ Blount
Section 106(k)(1)(F) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `(F) $9,350,028,000 for fiscal year 2010. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
We did it in the 1960s when we first offered guidance on disclosure related to risk factors.[12] We did so in the 1970s regarding disclosure related to environmental risks.[13] We did so in 1980 when the agency adopted Management’s Discussion and Analysis sections in Form 10-K.[14] We did it again in the 1990s when we required disclosure about executive stock compensation[15] and in 1997 regarding market risk.[16] Of course, there was lively debate about each of these disclosure… [read post]