Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 181 - 200
of 5,916
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2006, 7:17 am
Jimmy Buffett doesn't have to worry about the interpretation of GATT Article XX(g) or the chapeau. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 1:00 am
On 7 December, the Board of Appeal posted a communication on their website wherein the decision in case T 1063/18 on the patentability of plants was summarized (see here). [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 4:38 am
Words matter in contracts. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore the wording “connected only to” does not introduce subject-matter that extend beyond the content of the application as originally filed. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus, the Board came to the conclusion that the technical activity of step A did not interact with the mental activities of steps B to E to lead to a tangible technical result and therefore had to be ignored in the assessment of inventive step. [12] The Board considers that the present case clearly differs from the case underlying decision T 784/06. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
Moreover, G 2/10 points out that G 1/03 refers exclusively to undisclosed disclaimers (see G 2/10 [3.9]). [read post]
22 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Reference was also made to decisions T 793/93 and T 204/00 as cited in the Case Law, 6th edition, 2010, page 560.The board, however, cannot agree with the above arguments. [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, A 84 (EPC 1973) together with R 29 (EPC 1973) requires a claim to give all the essential features that are necessary for defining the invention.This requirements has also been affirmed in decision G 1/07 [4.2.2; 3.3.1 – should read 4.3.1]. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:14 am
G 3/97 and G 4/97), the consequence of which being that the opposition is inadmissible? [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
If you read the whole story, you will find interesting things on T 352/04 and on the requirements of R 80. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
T 79/91 [2.2-2.5], and T 246/91, point 7 (both not published in OJ). [1.8] In connection with the interpretation of R 57a EPC 1973 (now R 80) [the patent proprietor] referred to decisions T 1138/02, T 181/02, T 223/97, T 610/95, G 1/84, G 9/93, and G 1/05. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 11:40 am
However, whether smoking is good or bad for your health is not really a matter of opinion (spoiler, it’s bad for you). [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 1:28 am
The Board of Appeal thus concluded that the addition of the disclaimer did change the subject-matter of the claim (r. 15) and added matter in view of the original application (Article 76(1) EPC). [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 1:41 am
G 3/97 and G 4/97), the consequence of which being that the opposition is inadmissible? [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1981/12 [catchword, point 1] the Board considered, in somewhat similar circumstances, that the correct basis for the refusal of the application was that the applicant was not entitled to pursue an application based on subject matter not searched by the EPO. [read post]
30 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
Is the drastic consequence of G 1/93 (the so-called A 123(2)/123(3) trap) still valid, although no contracting state of the EPC and no [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 3:17 am
G 4/95's headnotes read: "1. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 12:24 pm
Nevertheless, it tended to the view that the simulation method underlying claim 1 of each request did not contribute to the technical character of the invention and that the subject-matter of claim 1 of each request lacked inventive step.V. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
On the contrary, the admissibility of a late filed request is always a matter of the board’s discretion (cf. inter alia T 446/00 [3.3]). [read post]
