v]: the Supplement says that this version is in six stanzas, but there are in Lyell 30 the usual seven stanzas, and they vary only insubstantially
from IMEV 2556 as printed by MacCracken in Lydgate's Minor Poems, 282-4.
Life just flits away as insubstantially
as a dream.
326) As opposed to focusing on claim meaning, patent players would need to determine whether a device, for example, is insubstantially
different from the claimed invention.
The State stands to lose not only 100% of its Title I funding, but also any funding dependent on the Title I formula but unrelated to NCLB if it chooses not to follow the exact dictates of the Act, even insubstantially
The doctrine of equivalents states that the scope of a patent is not necessarily limited to the literal meaning of the words in the patent's claims, but may encompass inventions with elements insubstantially different from those described in the patent.
3d at 1106 (explaining that finding a minority to be equivalent to a majority would vitiate the claim limitation and be insubstantially different from the claim limitation).
2000) ("[I]t would defy logic to conclude that a minority--the very antithesis of a majority--could be insubstantially different from a claim limitation requiring a majority.
La Ley Federal para Prevenir y Eliminar la Discriminacion" is translated in various ways that insubstantially
differ from the translation that the author has chosen, i.
174) As a patent claim element written in means plus function language can often be written in a generic manner to claim also functions insubstantially different from those actually recited in the patent specification, the logic of Chiuminatta would suggest that the doctrine of equivalents would not extend the protection provided by the literal language of the patent.
Briefly, the doctrine of equivalents holds that a patent is infringed not only when an accused device falls within a strict literal reading of the patent claims but also when the accused device, though not literally within the patent claims, is only insubstantially different from what is claimed in the patent.
The Court resolved Pickering in favor of the speaker, concluding that, because "the fact of employment [was] only tangentially and insubstantially involved" in his letter, he must be treated akin to a "member of the general public.
118) But it also emphasized that protection was warranted because the speaker's role as a teacher was "only tangentially and insubstantially involved in the subject matter" of his speech.