Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]
The current version of the MPEP is the 9th Edition, which was released in March 2014. The MPEP has traditionally been available in paper form, but electronic versions are now used more often, particularly because an applicant only may consult the electronic versions while taking the USPTO registration examination, or the patent bar examination ...
1854. In Winans v. Denmead, the US Supreme Court decided that the interpretation of patent claims is a question of law, decided by a judge, while the finding of infringement is a question of fact, decided by a jury. [4] This remains a binding precedent currently. 1870.
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application.For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories".
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the ...
A multiple choice question, with days of the week as potential answers. Multiple choice (MC), [1] objective response or MCQ(for multiple choice question) is a form of an objective assessment in which respondents are asked to select only the correct answer from the choices offered as a list.
‘Decisional mistakes are mistakes of law and occur when "a party [makes] the wrong choice between two known, alternative sets of facts". Universal Cooperatives, (citation partly omitted), 715 F. Supp. at 1114. On the other hand, an ignorant mistake occurs where "a party is unaware of the existence of the correct alternative set of facts". Id.
At step two, the Chevron doctrine requires the court to evaluate whether the interpretation of the law that the executive agency proposes is "reasonable" or "permissible". If it is, then the court must accept the agency's interpretation. If it is not, only then may the court conduct its own interpretation of the law. [16]