Outline of Patent Office Interference Practice1969 |
No grāmatas satura
1.–3. rezultāts no 48.
9. lappuse
... filed prior to the filing date of the application upon which the patent issued , he must , if his effective filing date was not more than three months later , file an affidavit to the effect that he made the invention prior to the effective ...
... filed prior to the filing date of the application upon which the patent issued , he must , if his effective filing date was not more than three months later , file an affidavit to the effect that he made the invention prior to the effective ...
10. lappuse
effective filing date is more than three months later than that of the patentee the requirement is more stringent , 1 and after declaration of an interference in such case , the showing is subject to examination by the Board under new ...
effective filing date is more than three months later than that of the patentee the requirement is more stringent , 1 and after declaration of an interference in such case , the showing is subject to examination by the Board under new ...
21. lappuse
... filing date , or in the case of a patentee by the number and date of the patent . The notices shall also specify the issue of the interference , which shall be clearly and concisely defined in only as many counts as may be necessary to ...
... filing date , or in the case of a patentee by the number and date of the patent . The notices shall also specify the issue of the interference , which shall be clearly and concisely defined in only as many counts as may be necessary to ...
Saturs
Introduction | liv |
I | 5 |
Interference Issue Interpretation of Counts | 17 |
Autortiesības | |
10 citas sadaļas nav parādītas.
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
49 CCPA 50 CCPA 75 USPQ 99 USPQ action under 35 adversary adversary's affidavits amend Attorneys award of priority Board of Patent Botnen Brenner burden of proof CADC Com'r Pats Commissioner of Patents Commonwealth Engineering Company considered Corp Court of Customs cross beams Customs and Patent decision disclosed disclosure dissolution double patenting effect estoppel evidence F 2d F.Supp ference filing date infra inter interference counts Interference Examiners interference issue interference proceeding inventor inventorship involving JPOS judgment jurisdiction Ladd Manual motion to dissolve motion under Rule notice old Rule operation panels Patent Appeals Patent Interferences Patent Office petition Philco preliminary statement primary examiner prior art priority of invention proposed Count question Radio Corporation reasons of appeal record reduction to practice refused res adjudicata senior party Sockman specification Sperry Rand subject matter Supp supra Switzer taking testimony tion ССРА