Find great deals on eBay for vcds 12 and vag com. Shop with confidence. VAG KKL OBD2 USB Cable FTDI FT232RL Chip + 2x2 OBD1 Adapter Cable for VCDS Lite. VCDS 12.12 is newly released vag diagnositc interface. Vag com 12.12 diagnostic interface can support for VW, Audi, Seat and Skoda models from 1994 to 10. Vagcom 12.12 software version is V12.12. Today, VOBDII.COM will share with you the free download link of Vag com 12.12 Diagnostic Software.

Product keys are required for installation of Autodesk products and are used to differentiate products that are both sold independently and as part of a product suite. Autodesk ecotect analysis 2011 x86 crack windows 7. The same version of AutoCAD is in both software packages but the product key differentiates one package from the other. Note: Please ensure you are using the correct product key for the Autodesk product and version you are installing. For example, installing AutoCAD 2011 as a point product requires product key 001C1, but installing AutoCAD 2011 from the AutoCAD Revit Architecture Suite 2011 requires product key 241C1.

Start Preamble AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently issued a decision regarding the inquiry of whether a claim limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activities (or elements) to a skilled artisan in the relevant field. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that whether a claim element, or combination of elements, represents well-understood, routine, conventional activities to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has implemented this decision in a memorandum recently issued to the Patent Examining Corps (the Berkheimer memorandum).

The Berkheimer memorandum is available to the public on the USPTO's internet website. Examiners had been previously instructed to conclude that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkheimer memorandum now clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in the memorandum. Aditionally the Berkheimer memorandum now also specifies that the analysis for determining whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under (a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification.

The USPTO is now seeking public comment on its subject matter eligibility guidance, and particularly its guidance in the Berkheimer memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps. DATES: Comment Deadline Date: Written comments must be received on or before August 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent by electronic mail message over the internet addressed to:.

Electronic comments submitted in plain text are preferred, but also may be submitted in ADOBE® portable document format or MICROSOFT WORD® format. Comments not submitted electronically should be submitted on paper in a format that facilitates convenient digital scanning into ADOBE® portable document format. The comments will be available for viewing via the USPTO's internet website ( ). Because comments will be made available for public inspection, information that the submitter does not desire to make public, such as an address or phone number, should not be included in the comments. Start Further Info FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Kosowski, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7688 or Matthew Sked, Senior Legal Advisor, at 571-272-7627, both with the Office of Patent Legal Administration. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Federal Circuit Decision in Berkheimer: The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision holding that the question of whether certain claim limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional elements raised a disputed factual issue, which precluded summary judgment that all of the claims at issue were not patent eligible.