Search for: "Downloader 84" Results 141 - 160 of 471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
It follows that the Board cannot endorse the submission of the [opponent] concerning the question of whether the objections under A 84 EPC 1973 can be admitted into the present proceedings. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 6:03 am
She then downloaded the videos to her laptop's hard drive. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
If that is not the case, it must be apparent from the arguments presented in the statement of grounds and/or from the attached amended claims that the reasons for refusal based on lack of sufficiency (A 83) and lack of essential features (clarity/support, A 84) are implicitly addressed or that at least the amended claims clearly overcome them. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
So if you want to reduce the risk of losing a patent for minor details, you better show up at the OPs.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here. [read post]
1 Apr 2018, 7:00 pm by Stephen Schultze
Nearly every search, page view, and PDF download from the system incurs a fee ranging from 10 cents to $3 (or, in some cases, much more). [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 1:00 am by Sander van Rijnswou
The procedure is depicted in figure 2.Clarity and sufficiency of disclosure,Articles 84 and 83 EPC2. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The application was refused because claim 1 did not fulfil the requirements of A 84 and A 123(2) EPC. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:16 pm by Jake Linford
You can download the spreadsheet used to make these calculations. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
The Board then found the auxiliary request to be clear and remitted the case to the ED for further prosecution.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
One has the impression that the Boards have not reached a consensus on this topic yet.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here. [read post]
26 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver
This is an appeal against the refusal of the application under consideration by the Examining Division (ED).The ED raised objections under A 84 and A 123. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The fact that the application was refused on the same ground of indefiniteness of the point of intersection must have come as a surprise to the appellant because the objection is based both on new facts (the replacement of the expression “linear object” by “thin object” in claim 1) and on new technical considerations that had not been communicated to the appellant beforehand.Therefore, the Board agrees with the appellant that the decision of the ED, insofar as it is based on… [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Hence, a lack of clarity seems to be present (A 84). [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This, however, does not apply to the present examination case.As a consequence, contrary to the appellant’s opinion, the criteria established by A 69 and its protocol and applied by a national court in litigation cases do not apply to substantive examination before grant.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Claim 1 of the request thus fulfils the requirements of A 84 and A 83. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The argument that the choice of the measurement method for determining Mn, Mw and the lower limit of the high molecular weight (HMW) ethylene copolymer fraction had an influence on the values obtained and that therefore the skilled person would not know whether he had obtained something falling within the ambit of the claims – as it was argued by the [opponents] as well as in the decision under appeal – boils down to the argument that the boundaries of the claims are not clearly defined,… [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]