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
45 JPOS 49 CCPA 50 CCPA 56 JPOS 72 USPQ 99 USPQ adversary adversary's aff'd affidavits amendment application award of priority Board of Patent Brenner burden of proof CADC Chemical claims Com'r Pats Comr Commissioner of Patents Company copy Corp Court of Customs Customs and Patent decision disclaimer disclosure Double Patenting Edison S.P.A. effect estoppel evidence F.Supp failure ference filing date final hearing infra inter interference counts Interference Examiners interference issue interference proceeding inventor inventorship involving judgment junior jurisdiction L.Ed Ladd motion to dissolve motion under Rule MPEP Natta notice old Rule party's Patent Appeals Patent Interferences Patent Office petition preliminary statement primary examiner prior art priority of invention proposed Count question Radio Corporation record reduction to practice refusal requisites res judicata S.Ct SDNY senior party Sockman specification Sperry Rand subject matter supra terminal disclaimer tion USPQ