Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of the system of military justice of the armed forces of the United States.The UCMJ was established by the United States Congress in accordance with their constitutional authority, per Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . to make Rules for the Government and ...
Article 52 states, In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. [1] The function, form and content of the claims are defined by Article 84 supplemented by Rule 43 EPC. [notes 1] [2] The wording of Article 84 is as follows: The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought.
March 19, 1986, T 51/84 (Coded distinctive mark/Stockburger). [2] The Board held that if a claim focuses solely on procedural steps involved in applying a coded distinctive mark to an object without indicating or presupposing technical means for carrying them out, a process of this kind is excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Greece deposited its instrument of ratification on December 13, 2005, and was the fifteenth Contracting State to ratify or accede to the EPC 2000. [6] In addition, since not all the contracting states had deposited their instruments of ratification or accession by September 30, 2007, the EPC 2000 entered into force on December 13, 2007.
T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) which built on the principles suggested by the same Board in T 641/00 (Comvik, Two identities).
Article 52(3) EPC then qualifies Art. 52(2) EPC by stating: The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.