Search for: "T. B.1."
Results 1 - 20
of 29,882
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2008, 1:30 pm
Answer: It shouldn't violate the terms of your B-1 status, but it may not look that way to border inspectors. [read post]
19 May 2023, 8:33 am
He can be reached at Jeff@Jeffnewmanlaw.com or 617-823-3217 The post India based L&T Technology Services to pay $9.9 Million to settle visa fraud suit over B-1 Visa fees underpayed appeared first on Jeff Newman Law. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 11:59 am
Section 31(1)(b)T-Series argues that this provision privileges the interests of broadcasters (who it claims have previously abused it for financial gain at the cost of copyright owners). [read post]
25 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1391/07, [2.5]; T 877/06 [5]; T 1708/06 [6]; T 469/03 [4.2]). [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 9:32 pm
(b)(1)(A) doesn't protect defendants. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 4:24 am
T 621/12, Reasons, point 2). [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
A consequence thereof is that the claims must be clear in themselves when read by the person skilled in the art, without any reference to the content of the description (see T 2/80 [2]; T 1129/97 [2.1.2]; T 2006/09 [4]). [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
In the case underlying decision T 1459/05 claim 1 as granted had been combined with its dependent claim 4 and the amendment considered under A 84 was the feature added to claim 1. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 1:38 pm
But you need to make sure that the rules under 403(b)1(B)-(E) are also included in the document and, if the custodial account is also going to hold an annuity contract, have language which defers to that group contract (including the fact that the custodian won’t control the assets in the contract). [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 1:11 pm
(T 988/02 [3.3.1]). [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus the Board is of the opinion that the purpose for which ethanol is added in step (b) of the process according to claim 1 cannot constitute a feature that establishes novelty.[15] The [patent proprietor] points out that according to decision T 848/93 the use feature in step (b) of claim 1 should indeed be considered as a functional feature of the process that could establish novelty.[16] In decision T 848/93 the claim under consideration was… [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Since the application as originally filed discloses both the incorporation of the claimed braking system in a tramway vehicle or, alternatively, in a railway vehicle, there is a basis for limiting the claim to the combination of a railway vehicle and the braking control system of claim 1 as granted. [3] Concerning the question of the connection between the control units A,B and the speed sensors, it is true that figure 1 as originally filed contains some inconsistencies… [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 9:29 am
In addition, the B-1 visa doesn't include the prevailing wage and federal tax requirements that an H-1B visa requires. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Thus, in line with decision G 1/03 [2.5.2] which states that “... [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
Board 3.3.08 had to deal with an A 53(b) objection:[2] The [opponent] has raised an objection under A 53(b) in its letter 24 September 2013 sent in reply to the Board’s communication pursuant Rule 15(1) RPBA. [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 9:20 am
With regard to the first question (1 (a)) (para. 52 et seq.), i.e. the question of the applicability of Art. 5 (1) b second indent Brussels I with regard to contracts for the provision of services if the services are provided in different Member States, the AG refers to the judgments given by the ECJ in Color Drack and in particular Rehder: In Color Drack, the ECJ held with regard to the sale of goods that the first indent of Art. 5 (1) (b) Brussels I has… [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request read: 1. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
The Board won’t allow such reasonings:A 123(2)[2.1] The preamble and features (a), (c) and (f) of claim 1 are disclosed in originally filed claim 1 and at page 2, line 28 - page 3, line 3 of the description of the application as filed. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 4:27 pm
It doesn't have to be a Toll Road. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 9:55 am
8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) doesn't exist, even though it was cited by a Sheriff. [read post]
