Outline of Patent Office Interference Practice1961 - 141 lappuses |
No grāmatas satura
1.–3. rezultāts no 31.
44. lappuse
... considered but affidavits relating to the prior art may be considered by analogy to Rule 132 . " If there is considerable doubt as to whether or not a party's application discloses the subject matter in issue or is operative and it ...
... considered but affidavits relating to the prior art may be considered by analogy to Rule 132 . " If there is considerable doubt as to whether or not a party's application discloses the subject matter in issue or is operative and it ...
76. lappuse
... considered are stated in Rule 258 ( corresponds in part to old Rules 122 and 130 ) : 1 " In determining priority of invention , the Board of Patent Interferences will consider only priority of invention on the evidence submitted ...
... considered are stated in Rule 258 ( corresponds in part to old Rules 122 and 130 ) : 1 " In determining priority of invention , the Board of Patent Interferences will consider only priority of invention on the evidence submitted ...
134. lappuse
... considered conflicting registra- tions presented for the first time upon the hearing of an intra - office appeal from the decision of the Examiner . Quoting from the opinion of this Court ( p . 998 ) : " No notice was given by appellee ...
... considered conflicting registra- tions presented for the first time upon the hearing of an intra - office appeal from the decision of the Examiner . Quoting from the opinion of this Court ( p . 998 ) : " No notice was given by appellee ...
Saturs
Introduction | 1 |
Attorneys Representation of Parties with | 17 |
Withdrawal by Primary Examiner | 23 |
Autortiesības | |
Citi izdevumi - Skatīt visu
Bieži izmantoti vārdi un frāzes
72 USPQ 81 USPQ 99 USPQ action under 35 affidavits application or patent assignee Board erred Board of Interference Board of Patent Botnen burden of proof CADC CCPA Com'r Pats Commissioner of Patents considered Corp Court of Customs cross beams Customs and Patent decision Declaration of Interference determination disclosed disclosure dissolve the interference effect Examiner of Interferences February 28 ference filing date infra inter interference counts Interference Examiners interference issue interference proceeding inventor July 19 junior party Manual motion period motion to dissolve motion under Rule notice old Rule operation overdrive panels Patent Appeals Patent Interferences Patent Office patentable subject matter Primary Examiner prior art priority of invention proposed Count question of priority reasons of appeal record reduction to practice request res judicata Rule 94 senior party Set Final Hearing show cause specified subject matter Supp supra tion unpatentable