Search for: "T. B.1."
Results 21 - 40
of 29,968
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2021, 4:37 pm
This statement regarding taxes isn’t quite right. [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 5:58 pm
While these words may not have violated PL 240.30(1)(b), the defendant did run afoul of Second Degree Aggravated Harassment. [read post]
10 Dec 2016, 5:58 pm
While these words may not have violated PL 240.30(1)(b), the defendant did run afoul of Second Degree Aggravated Harassment. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 6:29 am
Cue the ending music: … as simple as do-re-mi [not in the top 20] A-B-C, 1-2-3 [#10] baby you and me girl ["babygirl" is #13] [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 1:15 pm
Similar to its federal counterpart, Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in... [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 11:08 am
The Interpretation initially noted that FAR 91.9(b)(1) "prohibits operation of an aircraft for which an [flight manual] is required if that aircraft does not contain a copy of the "current" approved [flight manual]". [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 2:46 am
Questions to Ask: * Why don't plaintiffs seek certification more often under Rule 23(b)(1)? [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Another decision dealing with novelty in the medical realm …Claim 1 of the request refused by the Examining Division (ED) read:1. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:24 am
The opposition was based on the grounds for opposition under Article 100(a) EPC, in combination with Articles 54 and 56, and Article 100(b) EPC.1.1 With regard to Article 100(b), the opponent argued that claim 1 introduced a "remote data processing server" but failed to specify its relation to the preceding features of the claim relating to a "remote data processing system". [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
T 382/92). [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 1:13 am
With the statement of the grounds of appeal the appellant re-submitted the main request, filed new auxiliary requests 1 to 6 and submitted arguments to the effect that the subject-matter of claim 1 of all the requests was not excluded from patentability pursuant to Article 53(b) EPC.Claim 1 of the main request read:"1. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
”This subject-matter is described in the text of the parent application as comprising “one embodiment” […] and “another embodiment” […], the latter being selected as the subject-matter of the current divisional application […]:“In another embodiment, this invention provides a method for producing taxanes in high yields in cell culture of a Taxus species by cultivating cells of a Taxus species in suspension culture … the nutrient media… [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
The requirements of R 99(1)(b) are thus met. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Document D3 also discloses (see claims 1-9) a method of producing bovine milk comprising the steps of testing milk from identified cows for the presence of variants of beta-casein (which corresponds to step (a) of claim 1) and selecting those cows whose milk contains the A2 (or A3, D or E) variant and does not contain any A1 variant (which corresponds to step (b) of claim 1), and milking separately the A2 variant milk producing cows and recovering and maintaining… [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 4:08 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
4 May 2017, 10:06 am
"If retail politics doesn't kill this $1 trillion tax, the Supreme Court should": Theodore B. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 3:28 am
Is a priority claim valid even without any assignment of priority right from B to A? [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
In this opposition appeal case Board 3.3.02 had to decide on the novelty of claim 1 as granted, which read:1. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 7:43 am
"Section 1(a) of the Act provides that "[t]he owner of a trademark used in commerce may request registration of its trademark. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 1:30 am
The case is remitted to the examining division for further prosecution on the basis of claims 1 to 21 of the request filed under cover of the letter of 31 August 2012.This decision T 2050/07 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2013:T205007.20130219. [read post]
