Search for: "AT&T"
Results 2041 - 2060
of 881,614
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2018, 3:28 am
The board had also not provided conclusive reasons on the basis of tangible evidence (see decision T 1014/07, reasons point 8) showing why the skilled person starting from D4 would, and not just could (see decision T 0002/83, headnote [read post]
7 Apr 2017, 6:01 am
T 755/96, OJ EPO 2000, 174, Reasons 4.1; T 798/05, Reasons 7, last two paragraphs). [read post]
11 Apr 2008, 2:46 am
"Among the legal issues currently being litigated by KU (though not discussed in the interview) is one lawsuit against a Lawrence, Kansas retailer that sells T-shirts - Joe-College.com. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:17 pm
In the present case, the Opposition Division admitted into the proceedings late-filed documents D9 and D14 and held that claim 1 of the then main request (patent as granted) and of the then first to sixth auxiliary requests did not involve inventive step pursuant to Article 56 EPC starting from D9 as closest prior art in combination with the teaching of D14. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
In my preceding post, I announced another decision on Swiss-type claims. [read post]
21 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
Both decisions cited by the [patent proprietor] (T 152/03 and T 906/01) concern prototype devices that were to be implanted in a small number of patients. [read post]
16 May 2012, 5:01 pm
This appeal was against the revocation of the patent under consideration by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
If the provisional results of the second poll are representative, there are quite a few chemists among the readers of this blog. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
In T 1464/05 [5.3.1], also cited by the [patent proprietor], the Board concluded that although subsequent modifications of the composition cannot be excluded ..., there is no indication that the modifications would have been sufficiently significant to affect the present conclusions”. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
The present appeal was filed against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to revoke the opposed patent. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, the Board has the discretion, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, to admit modifications of the submissions (Vorbringen) of a party or not to consider submissions of a party if there were reasons to make them during the first instance (T 240/04 [16.1-2], and T 339/06 [6.3]).[8.5] In the present case, the [patent proprietor] filed requests which did not contain the process claims, on which the impugned decision was based, but which… [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
This would not be to interpret claims but to rewrite them, thereby depriving the claims of their intended function (see T 881/01 [2.1]; T 1208/97 [4]). [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 4:03 pm
Accordingly, although the salient facts are slightly different, the position is comparable with that described in T 1382/04 [1] and the Board has the power to issue a decision on the appeal. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
In this respect the board concurs with the view expressed in T 358/08 [5] that R 99 has not altered the previous law as to the requirements of either the notice of appeal or the statement of the grounds of appeal as regards the appellant’s requests. [read post]
23 May 2010, 3:01 pm
Three aspects have been identified for assessing the common general knowledge of the skilled person (T 890/02 [3]). [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]
18 Sep 2011, 1:19 am
Klageschrift Department of Justice ; Ergänzung der Klage Beantragt ist: That AT&T’s proposed acquisition of T? [read post]
11 May 2011, 11:44 am
When a Senate antitrust committee hearing is called “The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger: Is Humpty Dumpty Being Put Back Together Again? [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 2:58 pm
You don't think it would be the best for your child. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 12:05 pm
Daniel Sokol Alberto Alemanno, HEC Paris - Law Department and Marco Ramondino, discuss France Télécom/Wanadoo Judgment: 'To Recoup or Not to Recoup? [read post]
