Search for: "D2"
Results 81 - 100
of 408
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2012, 11:01 am
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) refusing his application on the ground of lack of novelty over documents D1 and D2.The applicant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the appeal fee be reimbursed. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 4:11 am
After oral proceedings, the Division concluded that D2 did constitute prior art. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 3:05 pm
Moreover, although D2 is mentioned as prior art in the present application as originally filed, a technical problem to be solved with respect to D2 is not expressly formulated therein. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Document D2 […] discloses examples of “Styling Mousse 3” and “Styling Mousse 4”, respectively, i.e. [read post]
26 May 2021, 6:32 am
.): D2 54945-0-II Unpublished Opinion Makah Reply State Response to Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault Amicus Brief Makah Answer to Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault Amicus Brief [missing from the court’s website are the initial briefs of the tribe and state, and the Hoh-Quiluete-Quinault amicus brief] An excerpt: The Makah Indian Tribe appeals the superior court’s order denying a constitutional writ to block a land exchange proposed by the Department of Natural Resources… [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 3:10 pm
You will also notice that the initial license renewal period (proposed rule D1), annual renewal (proposed rule D2) and reinstatement timeframe (proposed rule D5) have also been revised. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 3:46 pm
D2/TD ------------- [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 5:14 pm
Consequently, document D2 is prior art within the meaning of A 54(2). [2]To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
Based on D2 as closest prior art, the Board found the invention to lack inventive step. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
60% and the silica according to example 12 of D2 where the V2/V1 ratio is equal to 61%. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Claim 1 of the patent as maintained by the Opposition Division read (in English translation):Implant (6) for the inter-vertebral space (25) withA) an essentially cuboid shaped body (7) with different diameters (D1, D2) between the lateral surfaces (14, 15) as well as between an upper surface (16) and a lower surface (17); whereby B) the lateral surfaces (14, 15) between which the smallest diameter (D1) extends are mostly parallel and flat; and with C) a device (8) for grasping by a tool… [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
D2 explains that such an imaging camera has the benefit of being very compact and having low power requirements […]. [read post]
16 May 2011, 3:01 pm
This argument, however, is not convincing in the light of the disclosure in figure 6 of D2.[4.7] The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore lacks an inventive step in the light of D2 combined with the skilled person’s common general knowledge. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
The Board agreed with the Opposition Division (OD) that the unit dose DC of example 5 of document D2 represented the most promising starting point for the assessment of inventive step. [1.3] The Board also concurs with the findings of the OD, undisputed by the [opponent], that: the sole distinction between the subject-matter of claim 1 as maintained and example 5 of document D2 lies in the fact that in the WSS of claim 1 the DC is in the form of a gel containing 15% to 80% by… [read post]
15 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
It is not possible to consider that they prevent the skilled person from using the EPE according to D2. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 11:45 am
D2 explicitly quotes D1 and compares the proposals of D1 and D2. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 11:45 am
D2 explicitly quotes D1 and compares the proposals of D1 and D2. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Furthermore, the Board notes that despite this disadvantage, anhydrous or near-anhydrous solutions of hydrogen peroxide have been used before in the oxidation of olefins, as indicated in document D2 […]. [read post]
18 Aug 2017, 3:31 am
In regard of the outcome of the discussion on the main request (no inventive step over D1 and D2) the first auxiliary request was withdrawn and replaced by a (new) first auxiliary request. [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 6:01 am
D2 settled within a few weeks.D1 argued causation and refused to settle. [read post]
