Search for: "Does 1-123"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,424
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2007, 2:20 pm
1 Charleston L. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 3:12 pm
The OD's considerations on A 83 might have negatively influenced their decision with regard to added matter (A 76(1), 123(2) and 123(3)). [read post]
9 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
The Board does not agree:[1.2] The [opponent] held claim 1 as maintained in the contested decision to contravene A 123(3). [read post]
4 Dec 2006, 9:12 am
April 26, 2006 Advertising Wall of Shame denizen, 123 Lump Sum apparently (1) has a sense of humor and (2) supports my point that selling your structured settlement payments (actually the rights to receive them) may be a dumb move (3) has no problem in exploiting "the dumb". [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 5:55 am
Eszter does it right. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
It follows from the above considerations, that the disclaimer of claim 2 of the auxiliary request 1 does not satisfy the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 9:00 pm
Decision G 1/03 therefore does not apply.4.5 The first auxiliary request is thus not allowable, because the subject-matter of claim 1 extends beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 123(2) EPC.(...)7.2 The board thus concludes that the claims of the third auxiliary request are novel.8. [read post]
17 May 2010, 3:16 pm
Here is another example of an extremely severe application of A 123(2) by the Boards of appeal.Claims 1 and 4 to 7 as originally filed read:1. [read post]
14 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Nor does deleting the drawings create any potential additional ambiguity beyond that which may have been present in claim 1 of the patent as granted.[3.4] Consequently, the Board comes to the conclusion that the deletion of the drawings does not extend the scope of the protection conferred by the main request, which request therefore fulfils the provisions of A 123(3).The Board then remitted the case to the first instance.Should you wish to download the whole… [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 7:03 am
Does that disclose that the heater may be absent? [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 7:22 am
The result of Ex parte Melsky was a mixed bag:The rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 95, 100, 109, 110, 119-123, and 125-131 are reversed. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
The Board does not see any reason for reaching a different conclusion because the introduction of the disclaimer into claim 1 and the addition of claim 8 comply with the requirements of A 123(2) and the decisions G 1/03 and G 2/10. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 4:43 pm
When the Enlarged Board decided, in G 1/03, that disclaimers did not violate A 123(2), many practitioners were greatly relieved. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The board agrees that the proposed amendments to part (d) of claim 1 could be regarded as a promising attempt as far as issues under A 123(2) and A 123(3) EPC are concerned. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 12:25 pm
WHEN DOES THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE KICK IN? [read post]
2 Jan 2010, 11:00 am
" The fact that the Opposition Division (OD) has, according to the minutes, expressed the opinion that claim 1 as amended satisfies the requirements of A 123(2), does not alter this finding because a corresponding statement is not justified or even made in the contested decision. [read post]
30 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
Is the drastic consequence of G 1/93 (the so-called A 123(2)/123(3) trap) still valid, although no contracting state of the EPC and no [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 8:14 am
The Board does not accept this argument for the following reasons.4.1 Within the context of amended claim 1 at issue feature (c) does not expressly exclude the presence of phosphate builder salts other than sodium tripolyphosphate in the claimed composition. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 3:21 am
These criteria also include the complexity of the amendment, whether an amendment to a patent application overcomes the objections raised and whether the amendment, prima facie, does not give rise to new objections (see Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal 2020, Supplementary publication 2, Official Journal EPO 2020, explanatory remarks on Article 13(2) and (1) RPBA 2020).2.3 The appellant argued that with its communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 the… [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 6:09 am
That being said, does it not seem disingenous given that at the same time the company solicits consumers to sell their structured settlements, which are created pursuant to a contract, on the suggestion that the payments are slow? [read post]
