No grāmatas satura
1.3. rezultāts no 27.
55. lappuse
A motion to dissolve on the ground that there is no interference in fact will not be considered unless the interference involves ... While specific grounds are not stated as in canceled Rule 232 ( a ) or its antecedent Rule 122 , thus ...
A motion to dissolve on the ground that there is no interference in fact will not be considered unless the interference involves ... While specific grounds are not stated as in canceled Rule 232 ( a ) or its antecedent Rule 122 , thus ...
56. lappuse
Important among the grounds heretofore recognized are ( 1 ) no right to make the claim and ( 2 ) no interference in fact . ... A party may not question the adequacy of his adversary's disclosure on a ground incompatible with his own .
Important among the grounds heretofore recognized are ( 1 ) no right to make the claim and ( 2 ) no interference in fact . ... A party may not question the adequacy of his adversary's disclosure on a ground incompatible with his own .
148. lappuse
The plain purport of Rule 130 is to entitle a party , who has unsuccessfully moved to dissolve an interference issue on the ground that his adversary is not entitled to make the claim , to a decision of the Board of Interference ...
The plain purport of Rule 130 is to entitle a party , who has unsuccessfully moved to dissolve an interference issue on the ground that his adversary is not entitled to make the claim , to a decision of the Board of Interference ...
Lietotāju komentāri - Rakstīt atsauksmi
Ierastajās vietās neesam atraduši nevienu atsauksmi.
Saturs
PAGE | v |
B v C Interference 855 0 G 16 Com Pats | xxviii |
Hezler 476 F 2d 1005 177 USPQ 458 | xxxvii |
Autortiesības | |
13 citas sadaļas nav parādītas.
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
50 CCPA 56 JPOS abandonment action adversary amendment appeal application award Board Brenner CADC CCPA Chemical claims Com'r Pats Commissioner of Patents Company considered copy Corp Corporation counts Court of Customs Customs and Patent decision determination disclosure dissolve distinguished earlier effect entitled establish evidence F.Supp fact failure ference filing filing date final hearing followed grounds held holding infra inter interference interpretation invention inventor involving JPOS judgment junior jurisdiction limitations means motion notice old Rule operation Patent Appeals Patent Office petition preliminary statement present primary examiner priority of invention procedure proceedings Products Public question reasons record reduction to practice reference refusal relating request requisites res adjudicata SDNY senior party showing Smith specification steps subject matter supra taking Term termination testimony tion United USPQ