Search for: "Does 1-97"
Results 161 - 180
of 2,133
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm
It cites T 1/81, which establishes that inverting process steps cannot support inventive step and implies that a geometrical inversion can neither justify this. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 4:27 am
But does the answer matter at all in the UK? [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 3:20 am
"The train to Haar - new location of the EBAThe consequences if the appeal does not comply with Article 108 EPC are provided by Rule 101(1) EPC: "If the appeal does not comply with Articles 106 to 108, Rule 97 or Rule 99, paragraph 1(b) or (c) or paragraph 2, the Board of Appeal shall reject it as inadmissible, unless any deficiency has been remedied before the relevant period under Article 108 has expired. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
(PROCEEDING/ACTION NO. 1.) [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 9:32 pm
(PROCEEDING/ACTION NO. 1.) [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 4:25 am
Does it help to submit an expert opinion regarding added matter in a divisional application (Art. 76(1) EPC), when the expert is a well-known former chair of a technical Board of Appeal and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal? [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 11:34 am
" It does not give "full weight" in its metrics to jobs that were funded by the law school. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm
[…] The appellant (proprietor) requested that the following questions be referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal: 1. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 8:22 am
They supplement the Insurance Distribution Directive ((EU) 2016/97) (IDD), which has a proposed application date of 1 October 2018 as opposed to the 23 February 2018, the delay of its supplementing Delegated Regulations is intended to align with the IDD’s proposed new application date. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
R 27a does not then apply, because the application does not contain any sequences, despite the fact that the invention refers to nucleotides or amino acids. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 12:24 pm
But Florida DOES NOT recognize Common Law Marriage!!! [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 7:00 pm
"The answer to question 1, which can be determined from either of the cited decisions, is neither yes or no, but that it does not matter what form the computer program is claimed, provided the program has the potential for causing a 'further technical effect'. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 1:25 am
Independent claim 1 of the main request reads as follows:"1. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The Board went on: “However, this does not mean that i f R 64 (a) is not or not correctly met then A 107 first sentence will necessarily not be complied with” (idem). [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
Does the finding that (a disclosure in) a prior art document D1 does not qualify as an accidental anticipation (thus not allowing the use of an undisclosed disclaimer) because it does not fulfill the criterion laid down in G 1/03 that it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the skilled person would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention, imply that it is automatically relevant for inventive step? [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 11:06 am
Finally, the third case on the docket Wednesday involves a defendant prosecuted for a sexually related offense that was committed between July 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 2:03 pm
1. [read post]
22 May 2012, 5:01 pm
The purpose of this provision is, apart from administrative purposes, to secure the appellant’s identification and to allow establishment of whether or not the appeal was filed by a party to the proceedings within the meaning of A 107 EPC 1973 (see T 97/98 [1.3]).Deficiencies and omissions regarding the appellant’s name or address may be remedied under R 65(2), first sentence, EPC 1973 on invitation of the board of appeal, even after expiry of the two-month time limit under A… [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:32 am
See Manson, supra, 432 U.S. at 112-16, 97 S. [read post]
17 Jul 2010, 11:01 am
This principle is generally recognised among the Contracting States of the EPC and is well established in European Union Law (G 2/97). [read post]
