Search for: "Downloader 97"
Results 181 - 200
of 497
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the request for apportionment of costs is not granted.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
[…]The appeal is dismissed.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
If the requirements regarding admissibility are met for at least one ground for opposition, the opposition is admissible as a whole (see T 212/97).[12] The explanations of the [opponent] regarding substantiation essentially consists in the following chain of arguments:(a) R 55 EPC 1973 does not provide that documents cited against [the opposed patent] have to be dated or that their date (Zeitrang) has to be indicated;(b) even if there was a requirement regarding [their] date, the dates… [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In this case the opponent filed an appeal against the decision to maintain the opposed patent in amended form.The patent proprietor requested the Board to hold the appeal inadmissible because it was based on fresh documents (D6 to D13).The opponent argued that these documents had been found in a search that had become necessary because the Opposition Division had revised the objective technical problem.[1.1] An appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with A 106 to A 108, R… [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
”[2.2] In the present case, the decision to refuse the application was made under A 97(2) according to the state of the file. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
The OD therefore concluded that these declarations did not satisfy the criteria in decision T 1212/97 for establishing the contents of an oral disclosure beyond reasonable doubt. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, G 5/83 ([…] and A 54(5) EPC 2000, which according to the EBA in G 2/08 [5.9 ff.] is considered to fill the lacuna in the EPC 1973 which had been filled in a praetorian way by the EBA with G 5/83 and the case law based on that decision) has consistently been interpreted by the boards as not providing for the patentability of uses in any of the methods recited in A 52(4) EPC 1973 (or A 53(c) EPC 2000) involving means that are a “device” (see for example T 1314/05 [3.2]; T… [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
This, however, does not apply to the present examination case.As a consequence, contrary to the appellant’s opinion, the criteria established by A 69 and its protocol and applied by a national court in litigation cases do not apply to substantive examination before grant.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In both faxes the date of the OPs was maintained.After the applicant’s announcement, dated 28 November 2011, that it would not attend these OPs the appellant was informed by fax of 29 November 2011 that the OPs were cancelled and that the proceedings were continued in writing.However, by cancelling the time limit the appellant was not given any opportunity to present its comments to overcome the negative position expressed in said communications against the claims filed with letter of 31… [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
These findings were communicated to the parties during the OPs held on May 14, 2013, subsequent to the corresponding discussion and the deliberation of the Board.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
”[1.8] This rule was applied in T 97/98 to correct a notice of appeal in circumstances very similar to those in the present case. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 1:45 pm
The subsequent, tort-based litigation resulted in the filing of 264 suits from over 2,400 plaintiffs in federal and state court for injuries and 97 deaths against more than 250 defendants. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
In this respect the rule appears to operate in a different way from R 64(1), under which if the applicant does not pay further search fees and the SD’s view on lack of unity is upheld by the ED, unsearched subject matter may not be pursued in that application: see G 2/02 [this should read G 2/92] and the further explanation of the operation of the rule in T 631/97. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
(i) This is precisely what happened in T 951/92 cited by the petitioner: the Board found that the ED had not acted in compliance with A 96 and A 97, R 51(3) EPC 1973 (A 94(3); R 71(2) EPC 2000), which require that any communication under A 94(3) EPC shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Of course, when amending its claims, the proprietor should not use this as an opportunity to tidy them up, but it would be over-formalistic to reject a claim - with the consequence of the revocation of the patent - simply because a further minor and/or linguistic amendment was carried out.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the request for remittal is rejected.The patent was finally revoked.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
This decision deals with an appeal against the decision of the Legal Division (LD) to resume proceedings that had been stayed.The patent application was about to be granted (communication pursuant to R 71(3) issued on February 20, 2009) when the LD stayed the proceedings as of April 16, 2009, because the Doosan Lentjes company had started entitlement proceedings against the applicant, the Hamon Enviroserv company before the Düsseldorf district court.On June 21, 2011, this court dismissed the… [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 7:36 pm
Settlement (2011) 2 (1): 97-113Stephanie L. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the decision of the Receiving Section (RS) refusing to treat an application as a divisional application.On May 26, 2010, a third party had requested a stay of proceedings concerning the parent application, a few days after the Examining Division had issued a decision to grant.On June 8, 2010, the applicant filed a divisional application.The mention of the grant of the parent application was published in the Bulletin.On June 10, 2010, the Legal Division informed the parties… [read post]
