The Federal ReporterWest Publishing Company, 1955 |
Результаты поиска по книге
Результаты 1 – 3 из 81
Стр. 288
... claims 18 and 19 as unduly broad and functional . In this respect , he said that the above italicized portion of claim 18 " is not regarded as a process step but rather a statement of the result expected to be obtained by the step of ...
... claims 18 and 19 as unduly broad and functional . In this respect , he said that the above italicized portion of claim 18 " is not regarded as a process step but rather a statement of the result expected to be obtained by the step of ...
Стр. 289
... claim is objectionable , Gen- eral Electric Co. v . Wabash Appliance Corp. , 304 U.S. 364 , 58 S.Ct. 899 , 82 L. Ed . 1402 , since the inventor is claiming what is old in the non - functional por- tion of the claim and merely claiming a ...
... claim is objectionable , Gen- eral Electric Co. v . Wabash Appliance Corp. , 304 U.S. 364 , 58 S.Ct. 899 , 82 L. Ed . 1402 , since the inventor is claiming what is old in the non - functional por- tion of the claim and merely claiming a ...
Стр. 505
... claim 1 , which is considered allowable , is limited to an oscillation of the bundle itself , whereas claim 7 calls merely for relative vibratory movement between the bundle and sleeve . We accordingly hold that claim 7 fails to define ...
... claim 1 , which is considered allowable , is limited to an oscillation of the bundle itself , whereas claim 7 calls merely for relative vibratory movement between the bundle and sleeve . We accordingly hold that claim 7 fails to define ...
Другие издания - Просмотреть все
Часто встречающиеся слова и выражения
action affirmed alleged amended amount appellant appellant's appellee application Asst bank bankruptcy Board Brian Holland certiorari charge Chief Judge Circuit Judge Cite as 223 claim Commissioner Company contract conviction corporation counsel Court of Appeals Criminal Law damages decision defendant defendant's dence denied District Court District Judge District of Columbia employee error evidence F.Supp fact Federal fendant filed finding Government held income tax indictment injuries intent Internal Revenue issue ixtle judgment jury KEY NUMBER SYSTEM L.Ed lant's liability ment motion negligence opinion ordinary income patent payment person petition petitioner plaintiff prior art proceeding prosecution question reason record registration remanded rule S.Ct Samish Section sion sisal Stat statement statute supra sustained Tax Court taxpayer testified testimony tion trade-mark trial court trial judge trust U. S. Atty Union United States Court United States District verdict violation Washington witness