Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Robbins filed the application on March 10, 1849, [13] which was granted as Patent No. 6,469 on May 22, 1849. [16] Lincoln's patent is the result of Offutt's flat-boat experience he had back in 1831. [17] The device was never produced for practical use [1] [2] and there are doubts as to whether
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The commercial use of Movietone began when William Fox of the Fox Film Corporation purchased the entire system, including the patents, in July 1926. Despite Fox owning the Case patents, the work of Freeman Harrison Owens, and the American rights to the German Tri-Ergon patents, the Movietone sound film system utilized only the inventions of Case Research Lab.
In those specific cases, applicants are required to identify the portions that are protected under copyright, and are additionally required to state the following within the body of the application and patent (see 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 37 CFR 1.84(s), and MPEP § 608.01(e) & and MPEP § 1512):
You feel you're watching a real movie and not a TV movie." [ 2 ] Tony Scott of Variety wrote that "director Steven Schachter goes for an arty mode of some filmmaking, with angled shots, stylized acting, Mamet's pseudo-naturalistic dialogue, and an unswerving storyline from which subplots bloom and fade."
Commission Regulation (EC) No 469-2002 of 15 March 2002 fixing the maximum purchasing price for butter for the 46th invitation to tender carried out under the standing invitation to tender governed by Regulation (EC) No 2771-1999
departmental or public sector organisation logos, crests and the Royal Arms except where they form an integral part of a document or dataset; military insignia; third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license; other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade marks, and design rights; and
On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, holding that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103, and that in "rejecting the District Court’s rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with §103 and our precedents," referring to the Federal Circuit ...