Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 181 - 200
of 53,761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2013, 11:01 am
The fact that the appellant had no opportunity to comment on all the grounds on which the decision appears to have been based constituted a substantial procedural violation within the meaning of A 113(1) and R 103. [5.4] For these reasons the decision under appeal must be set aside and the case remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution. [5.5] In these circumstances, it is equitable to order the reimbursement of the appeal fee in accordance with R… [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 3:50 pm
The reference to T 382/96 and T 446/00 (which merely cites - and translates - T 382/96) is not very helpful. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
In accordance with R 115(2), the proceedings continued without him. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 3:05 pm
[…] The appeal complies with A 106 and 107 and also with A 108, first and second sentence, and R 64 EPC 1973. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
If a person is a professional representative, then his/her employment status simply should not matter. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 2:42 pm
In the matter of Richard T. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
However, as stated in T 763/04 [4.4], “A 113(1) is not a formal provision, but rather one of substance. [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 11:03 am
As regards the “examples” referred to in R 42(1)(e), the Board considers that in the circumstances of the present case in which the amended application documents satisfy the requirements of A 83 and A 84 and the description describes in detail at least one way of carrying out the invention within the meaning of R 42(1) (e), specific examples are not indispensable and therefore the fact that none of the specific examples given in the description constitutes an example of… [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:26 am
REALLY, don’t discuss confidential business matters on a crowded train. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Similarly under EPC 1973 (as in force at the time of filing of the original application and of the replacement figures) this was a formal deficiency under R 32(2)(a) in combination with R 40, which could be remedied upon invitation under R 41. [4.4.3] The second reason given by the [opponent] as to why the colour figures should not form the basis of the comparison required under A 123(2) is based on the argument that no information concerning colour figures is available to… [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
T 961/00 [1]. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 3:09 pm
This is now also enshrined in R 99(2) . [read post]
20 May 2008, 6:06 pm
All that matters is who gets the king at the end. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
Independent claims in the same category; R 29(2) EPC 1973[4.3] As set out in the appealed decision, the subject-matter claimed in the independent method claims 1 and 10, as well as the subject-matter claimed in the independent apparatus claims 3 and 12, does not involve any of the exceptions (a), (b) or (c) mentioned under R 29(2) EPC 1973. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
It should not be left up to the party concerned and a board to construct the applicable reasons (see for instance T 1709/06 and T 1309/05). [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
It justified this course of action as follows (English translation):“a) There are unjustifiably many auxiliary requests and those requests do not converge towards patentable subject-matter. [read post]
27 May 2010, 4:47 am
GOOD QUESTION: “If deficits didn’t matter as many like Economist James Galbraith argue today, why should citizens even pay taxes? [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
(T 220/83 and T 145/88) What matters is not the length (Umfang) of the statement of grounds of appeal but its factual content:The requirement of A 108 is for a statement which sets out the substance of the Appellant’s case; that is, the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and the decision under appeal should be set aside. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
The discussion specifically concerned the feature (a) which relates to “an array of fluidic elements, at least some of the fluidic elements comprising fluidic amplifiers, the array having a face plate and a back plate” (reference numerals omitted). [5.1.1] An interpretation of the claimed subject-matter may be made by taking into account the whole context of the disclosure of the patent (decision T 467/02 [2.3]). [read post]
