000023841 000__ 01374cam\a2200445\i\4500
000023841 001__ 23841
000023841 003__ SzGeWIPO
000023841 005__ 20240708162202.0
000023841 008__ 990312s2007\\\\enk\\\\\r\\\\u000\0\eng\d
000023841 035__ $$a(wipo)(CD )99-0455
000023841 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1158916899
000023841 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000023841 041__ $$aeng
000023841 043__ $$an-us---
000023841 050_4 $$aK1401.A15$$bJ675
000023841 08204 $$a346.048$$222
000023841 084__ $$aGB 137 2007 no 7
000023841 090__ $$c26081$$d26077
000023841 1001_ $$aAnderton, John.,
000023841 24510 $$aPatent prosecution history as a predictor of re-examination success
000023841 264_1 $$aOxford [England] :$$bOxford University Press,$$cJuly 2007.
000023841 300__ $$a1 volume ([5] pages) ;$$c[28] cm.
000023841 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000023841 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000023841 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000023841 4901_ $$aJournal Of Intellectual Property Law & Practice,$$x1747-1532 ;$$v2007 Vol.2 No 7 pages 467-472
000023841 650_0 $$aIntangible property.
000023841 650_0 $$aIntellectual property.
000023841 650_0 $$aPatents$$zUnited States.
000023841 650_0 $$aIntellectual property$$zUnited States.
000023841 650_4 $$aPatent examination
000023841 650_4 $$aIntellectual Property$$xCase law
000023841 650_4 $$aPatent litigation$$zUnited States
000023841 651_0 $$aUnited States$$xCommerce$$xLaw and legislation.
000023841 830_0 $$aJournal Of Intellectual Property Law & Practice ;$$v2007 Vol.2 No 7 pages 467-472.
000023841 8564_ $$uhttp://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/7/467.pdf
000023841 903__ $$v1$$aJournal of Intellectual Property law & Practice
000023841 904__ $$aJournal article
000023841 942__ $$cART
000023841 952__ $$w2007-08-17$$p2007-0587$$u37392$$bMAIN$$10$$kGB 137 2007 no 7$$v2007-08-17$$70$$cMain Library$$yART
000023841 980__ $$aBIB
000023841 999__ $$c26081$$d26081