Search for: "Does 1-84" Results 141 - 160 of 2,374
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2024, 1:46 am by Rose Hughes
 Claim 1 as granted specified a "[a] machining device for machining the material of a pipe system". [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 7:17 am by Jessica Kroeze
According to this Board, the interpretation of those decisions ignores the fact that Article 114(2) EPC does not justify such discretion, as previous case law has repeatedly stated. [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
More specifically, the relevant legal provisions in the EPC dealing with this issue are A 84 and A 69 (and its protocol), the latter provisions in particular being intended to assist the patent proprietor in contending for an interpretation of a claim that is less rather than more restricted than its wording warrants. [read post]
21 Jun 2009, 9:00 pm
Under Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC the proprietor of a registered trade mark has the right to ban a third party from using that trademark in a comparative advertisement not compliant with the requirements as per Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450/EEC (concerning misleading and comparative advertising, amended by Directive 97/55/EC) even if such use does not jeopardise the essential function of the mark (indicating the origin of the goods or services) if… [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 2:17 am by Roel van Woudenberg
The examining division raised further objections under Articles 123(2), 84, 54(1),(3) EPC, and, after being requeste to do so, took as decision according to the state of the file - to refuse. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 1:00 am by Sander van Rijnswou
It involves the analysis of the parameter as such and its measurement, the evaluation of the knowledge of the skilled person with regard to the specific polymer under consideration and possibly also the assessment of whether Article 83 EPC or Article 84 EPC is to be applied. [read post]
12 May 2017, 12:56 am by Sander van Rijnswou
At the end, the board does concede though that in other situations this argument might work. [read post]
31 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
With respect to appeals in opposition proceedings, a similar provision is contained in R 98 (corresponding to previous A 106(2) EPC 1973).[1.5] It is the board’s understanding of this legislative framework that R 84(1) does not apply to the situations regulated by the separate legal provisions of Rule 75 and R 98 EPC. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 7:46 am
When does a lack of clarity "arise out of" an amendment? [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
In the case at issue, the summons of 1 June 2011 which served as the reasoning for the decision according to the state of the file, raised new objections with respect to A 84 for the newly added passages in claim 1 […]. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 8:14 am by Roel van Woudenberg
With letter of 20 April 2017, the appellant filed a modified version of the first to third auxiliary requests.First auxiliary requestClaim 1 of the first auxiliary request differed from claim 1 as granted in that "which polyolefin composition comprises" was replaced by "which polyolefin composition consists of" and the disclaimer "wherein the composition does not contain beta-nucleating agent" was removed.Second auxiliary requestClaim… [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 6:22 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. [read post]