No grāmatas satura
1.3. rezultāts no 42.
6. lappuse
Ordinarily it is not enough that rival applications disclose common subject matter.2 Such subject matter must be claimed , according to Rule 201 ( a ) . Moreover , the claim must be allowable in each application involved .
Ordinarily it is not enough that rival applications disclose common subject matter.2 Such subject matter must be claimed , according to Rule 201 ( a ) . Moreover , the claim must be allowable in each application involved .
49. lappuse
2 Motions ; Period for Making ; Types Motions are treated according to their subject matter under Rule 231 ? or Rule 243.3 Rule 231 ( a ) motions are called interlocutory motions and are considered by the primary examiner .
2 Motions ; Period for Making ; Types Motions are treated according to their subject matter under Rule 231 ? or Rule 243.3 Rule 231 ( a ) motions are called interlocutory motions and are considered by the primary examiner .
68. lappuse
... determination prima facie and gives rise to a presumption that ( 1 ) each party has adequately described and claimed the subject matter of the interference issue , i.e. , the counts of the interference ; ( 2 ) the subject matter of ...
... determination prima facie and gives rise to a presumption that ( 1 ) each party has adequately described and claimed the subject matter of the interference issue , i.e. , the counts of the interference ; ( 2 ) the subject matter of ...
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