Search for: "Downloader 91"
Results 181 - 200
of 424
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
On that point, rarely have I read such strong words as appear in Laws LJ’s judgment at [91]-[92]. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
On that point, rarely have I read such strong words as appear in Laws LJ’s judgment at [91]-[92]. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
On that point, rarely have I read such strong words as appear in Laws LJ’s judgment at [91]-[92]. [read post]
28 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
In particular the examples of the patent fall within the scope of the claim as granted whereas in the case underlying T 108/91 all the examples were outside the scope of the claim. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Here is another decision of the Legal Board concerning a decision of the Receiving Section (RS) not to treat an application as a divisional application. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 10:45 am
Similarly, in Pennsylvania, ready to eat or heated hot dogs would be taxable while a hot dog grocery or deli item would not (brochure downloads as pdf). [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 6:19 pm
My article, "The Cooperative as a Proletarian Corporation: The Global Dimensions of Property Rights and the Organization of Economic Activity in Cuba" has just been published and will appear in Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business 33:527-618 (2013). [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
This conclusion is in line with the findings in decision G 12/91 for the following reasons.[7] According to the facts underlying the referral decision in case G 12/91, it was not indicated in the decision of the first-instance department on which date the formalities section had handed over the decision to the EPO postal service (see G 12/91 [II]). [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus the ground for opposition [according to which the claims lack] inventive step is a fresh ground for opposition.As the patent proprietor has not given its approval for the examination of the ground for opposition [that the claims lack] inventive step, this ground cannot be examined (see G 10/91 [18]).Thus lack of novelty was the sole ground for opposition to be examined.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found… [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Consequently, the OD and the patent proprietor have to be able to clearly understand the objection and the corresponding evidence (T 204/91 [5]) and must be able to review at least one of the invoked grounds for opposition without further investigation (T 453/87 [2.2]). [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
16.1, 32, 84, 91; Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994, S.O. 1994, c. [read post]
29 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Here is what I believe to be the fourth successful petition for review (after R 7/09, R 3/10 and R 21/11). [read post]
21 May 2013, 5:01 pm
If a skilled person choses a specific interior rear-view mirror for a car as starting point, he can pursue its development, but the normal outcome of this development will in the end still be a rear-view mirror for a car and not a mirror suitable for use in a damp room (see T 570/91 [4.4]). [read post]
20 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 34/90, G 9/91 and G 10/91 [18]). [read post]
16 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus the appeal gives the losing party the possibility to contest the first instance decision (G 9/91) and aims at removing the “adverse effect” (“grief”) by modifying or setting aside the impugned decision. [read post]
8 May 2013, 5:01 pm
This appeal was filed by the patent proprietor, a Swiss company, after the Opposition Division (OD) had revoked its patent. [read post]
7 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Normally I do not present decisions of the Disciplinary Board, but I found this one quite entertaining.The appeal was filed by a candidate who had failed the EQE 2009 after having been awarded the following marks: A: 49; B: 55; C: 39; D: 57.*** Translation of the German original ***[2.1] The appellant pointed out that the (fictitious) client’s letter on which paper A was based clearly and unambiguously indicated that the client did not desire to obtain patent protection for the process using… [read post]
2 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Only if the skilled person were then presented with additional technical relevant information would an objection then allegedly arise.[3.3.4] The Board however finds this argument non-persuasive, as explained below.[3.3.5] In the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 2/10 [4.3] the following was stated when referring to earlier decisions G 3/89 and G 11/91:“it follows that any amendment to the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the… [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 6:40 am
Everyone is welcome to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. [read post]
