Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 181 - 200
of 3,380
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2017, 8:14 am
Disclaiming subject-matter not in the application-as-filed led to G 1/03 already quite some years ago and is well-documented in many later decisions as well as in the Guidelines - strict conditions, which can basically only work out well if there is only one Art.54(3) EPC prior right document with a single, clear disclosure. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
”A similar situation may occur when a disclaimer aiming at establishing novelty over subject-matter of a conflicting application under A 54(3) is to be introduced. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The Board does not see such a contradiction. [read post]
13 Dec 2020, 1:04 pm
For Rule 54(b) to apply, three prerequisites must be met: “(1) multiple claims for relief or multiple parties must be involved; (2) at least one claim or the rights and liabilities of at least one party must be finally decided; and (3) the district court must find that there is no just reason for delaying an appeal. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 11:54 pm
Therefore, the ground for opposition pursuant to Article 100(b) EPC did not prejudice the maintenance of the patent in suit as granted.- The novelty objections based on D4 and D8 (prior-art documents pursuant to Article 54(2) and Article 54(3) EPC, respectively) were not convincing because at least two selections had to be made from their respective disclosures to arrive at claim 1 of the patent in suit as granted.- D21 and D22 were admitted into the proceedings. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 1:25 am
Main request: Articles 100(a) and 54 EPCThe appellants contested novelty in view of D5 but, for the following reasons, the board does not share this view:3.1 D5 discloses a filter medium comprising a web with a fiber layer and spacer particles (claim 1).A "support layer" is required by claim 1 of the patent in suit, whereas D5 discloses the possibility of a stacked arrangement of layers with the same or different compositions (page 13 lines 22 to 27). [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 11:42 pm
Novelty (Article 54 EPC)2.1 The opposition division considered the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request to be known from D4.2.1.1 The first embodiment shown in figure 1 of document D4 is a field device reporting the temperature of a medium 3 flowing in a tube 2. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 2:48 am
Dugan Brothers of N.J., 1 N.J.Super. 13 (App.Div.1948). [read post]
15 Jul 2017, 8:42 am
Doe ex rel Doe 611 F.3d 888, 54 IDELR 275 (DC Cir 7/6/10) DC Circuit ruled that HO did not exceed his authority where he reduced a disciplinary suspension. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
In this opposition appeal case Board 3.3.02 had to decide on the novelty of claim 1 as granted, which read:1. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
P1 and P2, respectively, contain partial BRCA2 sequences while P3 does not contain any coding sequence at all. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 1:45 am
To recall, the questions being asked were the following: 1. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 10:41 am
Referencing a chart he presented, Whitehouse shared that despite inflation, CEO pay is off the charts, and that 1% of Americans owned 54% of the stock market (out of American stockholders, excluding foreign holders of US stock). [read post]
18 May 2016, 4:20 am
These restrictions upon legislative power extend to purported amendments to the Constitution itself (Namah at [54]). [read post]
3 May 2017, 1:05 pm
Co., 434 U.S. 159, 172, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977).Id. at 244.The court then began its analysis of Doe’s All Writs Act argument, explaining, initially, thatDoe contends that the Magistrate Judge did not have subject matter jurisdiction to issue the Decryption Order because the Government should have compelled his compliance by means of the grand jury procedure and not the All Writs Act. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 6:47 am
Main request - Article 54 EPC1.1 In its decision the examining division concluded that the subject-matter claimed was not novel over the disclosure of document D3.1.2 D3 discloses in example 1 and Table 1 the preparation of veterinary tablets comprising 3 wt% praziquantel as active ingredient in combination with febantel and pyrantel pamoate, blended with 20 wt% of artificial beef flavor and 10 wt% of yeast as taste masking agents (see also par. [0026], [0029] of D3), as… [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 4:05 am
– Performance Awards More Common at Larger Companies – 78% of general counsels at companies in the highest revenue range received performance-based stock, compared to only 22% of executives in the lowest revenue range and 54% of executives in the second lowest revenue range. [read post]
14 Mar 2007, 11:07 pm
John Does 1-54, Case No. 07-2-08568-8 SEA (King County Sup. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:35 pm
Reform 1, 11-29 (2003). [read post]
