Ad
related to: patent no 6 469 01 pdf full hd download
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Lincoln was at times a patent attorney and was familiar with the patent application process as well as patent lawsuit proceedings. Among his notable patent law experiences as a result of his patent was litigation over the mechanical reaper; both he and his future Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, provided counsel for John Henry Manny, an ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
Espacenet (formerly stylized as esp@cenet) [1] [2] is a free online service for searching patents and patent applications.Espacenet was developed by the European Patent Office (EPO) together with the member states of the European Patent Organisation.
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but ...
INPADOC was integrated into the European Patent Office (EPO) in 1991 with the Principal Directorate Patent Information of the EPO having been located in Vienna, Austria since. [ 4 ] [ 5 ] In 2003 the backlog of the legal status database was cleared up, and the physical storage of electronic records was established in The Hague .
China dominates the global race in generative artificial intelligence patents, filing more than 38,000 patents from 2014 to 2023, a U.N. report showed.
The Industrial Property Digital Library (IPDL) is a free online service for searching Japanese patents, patent applications, utility models, designs and trademarks. It makes available to the public the intellectual property Gazettes of the Japan Patent Office (JPO). The IPDL provides around 55.5 million documents and their relevant information ...
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, [1] set forth 14 years earlier in Patent Act of 1952 and codified as 35 U.S.C. § 103.