Search for: "Precision Polymers, Incorporated v. Reach" Results 1 - 4 of 4
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2023, 12:29 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The opposition division, however, decided that example 3 of D1 using ENGAGE® 8400 was a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step, without dealing with that argument (Reasons for the decision, page 9, lines 6-16).In the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant preemptively dealt with the enablement of the disclosure of example 3 of D1 and submitted that D18 is cross-referenced in the paragraph bridging pages 14 and 15 of D1 as a document describing the preparation of ENGAGE®… [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Supreme Court [of the United States] subsequently rejected such inferences as incompatible with ordinary contract principles under federal law in M and G Polymers USA, LLC v Tackett (574 US 427 [2015]) and CNH Industrial N.V. v Reese (583 US 138 S Ct 761 [2018]), repudiating International Union, United Auto., Aerospace, and Agric. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Supreme Court [of the United States] subsequently rejected such inferences as incompatible with ordinary contract principles under federal law in M and G Polymers USA, LLC v Tackett (574 US 427 [2015]) and CNH Industrial N.V. v Reese (583 US 138 S Ct 761 [2018]), repudiating International Union, United Auto., Aerospace, and Agric. [read post]
28 Jun 2015, 5:34 am
This decision was reached by considering that the patentee had in mind the possibility of expressing numerical values to a very high precision – the concentration of binding agent can be measured to a high degree of accuracy, and sections of the specification described concentrations accurate to two decimal places (i.e. 0.01%). [read post]