Search for: ". OD" Results 241 - 260 of 1,521
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In this case the opponent filed an appeal after his opposition had been rejected by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
14 May 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
The Board agrees with the interpretation of the term “comprising” by the OD. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
It also found document D23 to be highly relevant and introduced it into the proceedings before it remitted the case to the OD for further prosecution.The patent proprietor filed several new requests.On April 22, 2009, the OD (OD) again maintained the patent in amended form. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Furthermore it was shown during the demonstration that the menu of the “Elix 5” device provides also the option to set a variable factor of the flow […]. [3.3.6] Apparently no internal inspection of the “Milli-Q Academic” device and the “Elix 5” device was made during the course of the OPs before the OD. [read post]
14 Apr 2012, 11:01 am by Oliver
This is an appeal against the revocation of the patent by the Opposition Division (OD).The Board found the main request to lack inventive step and then discussed the admissibility of the auxiliary requests:*** Translation of the German original ***[4.1] At a very late stage of the appeal proceedings, i.e. about one month before the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board, the [patent proprietor] has filed for the first time amended claims according to auxiliary requests 1 and 2, in which… [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 11:00 pm
Después de siete años terminó el litigio en contra del coleccionista israelí Oded Golan a quien se acusaba de fraude por haber presentado el osario que supuestamente pertenece a Santiago, hermano de Jesús. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 7:30 am by EEM
 So perhaps Conference Room Papers are not included in the ODS either. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This is a revocation appeal.The Opposition Division (OD) had posted the decision revoking the opposed patent on March 11, 2010.The patent proprietor filed an appeal and paid the appeal fee on April 30, 2011.It then filed a written submission entitled “correction of appeal” on May 4, and paid two further appeal fees (on May 3 and May 5). *** Translation of the German original ***[1.1] On April 30, 2010, the [patent proprietor] filed a notice of appeal dated April 28, 2010, in… [read post]
22 May 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
In these decisions it was held that a transfer of opposition status can only be acknowledged as from the date when adequate evidence is produced, since it is a principle that a patent proprietor and, as the case may be, the OD or the board of appeal should know the identity of the party opposing a patent. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Despite the findings of the OD and the general remark in the board’s communication […], no such evidence was submitted in the appeal proceedings either. [2.3.5] Since the availability to the public of the information content of B7 before the effective filing date of the patent in suit is not proven, the board sees no reason for overturning the finding of the OD in this respect. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
Both the patent proprietor and the opponent filed an appeal after the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the opposed patent based on the fifth auxiliary request.Claim 22 of the patent as granted read:22. [read post]
29 May 2020, 12:42 pm by Paul Mark Sandler
Recently, Maryland Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera wrote in State v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Moreover, the above finding is not contrary to the decision G 9/91 [18], which states that “The purpose of the appeal procedure inter partes is mainly to give the losing party the possibility of challenging the decision of the OD on its merits. [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject the opposition.Claim 1 of the patent as granted read (in English translation):Builder-containing laundry detergent or cleaning composition comprising a water-soluble builder block, alkali metal percarbonate and a cellulose derivative capable of removing dirt, obtainable by alkylation and hydroxyalkylation of cellulose, and additionally a compound which releases an organic percarboxylic acid under… [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The opponents filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject the opposition.In their written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the opponents only invoked lack of inventive step under A 100(a). [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
This is an appeal against the revocation of the patent by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 4:59 am
I recently read an article on the International Brain Injury Association’s website by Neera Kapoor, OD, MS entitled, Photosensitivity Following Traumatic Brain Injury. [read post]
31 May 2019, 11:14 am by Tom Smith
"Everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don't believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know? [read post]