Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 201 - 220
of 3,380
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2018, 4:27 am
Furthermore, if a certain fraction derived from a prior art polymer has properties that fall within the scope of the claims, does this polymer then make the composition as claimed available to the public? [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 2:58 pm
”[1] And today, a small group of some of the world’s most powerful corporations exercise complete control over that public square. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 2:19 pm
Yet these donations overwhelmingly favor the coaches of men's teams -- of UI's 54 donated charter flights in the last year, only 1 was to the coach of a woman's team. [read post]
16 Dec 2016, 1:35 am
For these reasons the power source of claim 1 of the main request differed from that disclosed in E1, so that the claim complied with the requirements of Article 54 EPC.[...]Reasons for the Decision1. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 2:08 am
The board decided to admit the document.Main request - Claim 1Novelty - Article 54 EPC3. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Document D3 also discloses (see claims 1-9) a method of producing bovine milk comprising the steps of testing milk from identified cows for the presence of variants of beta-casein (which corresponds to step (a) of claim 1) and selecting those cows whose milk contains the A2 (or A3, D or E) variant and does not contain any A1 variant (which corresponds to step (b) of claim 1), and milking separately the A2 variant milk producing cows and recovering and maintaining… [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 11:01 am
This approach is also found to correspond to the will of the legislator as expressed in the preparatory documents.The EBA therefore comes to the following conclusion:Answer: Where it is already known to use a medicament to treat an illness, A 54(5) does not exclude that this medicament be patented for use in a different treatment by therapy of the same illness.Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is yes, is such patenting also possible where the only novel feature of… [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 11:47 am
” N.J.S.A. 9:3-50(c)(1). [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 7:36 am
An opposition had been filed against the patent, based on the grounds of Article 100(b) and of Article 100(a) EPC together with both Articles 54 and 56 EPC.The opposition against the patent was rejected by the opposition division which considered the subject-matter of the claims as granted to fulfil the requirements of Article 54 and 83 EPC. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 9:07 pm
Claims 2–13, 19– 23, and 29–30 fell with claim 1. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:29 pm
1. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 1:02 pm
This is in line with the French case law and the CJEU ruling in Zino Davidoff, C-414/99 at 54. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 5:07 am
This does not include what was said on the school radio as that was not recorded. [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 7:32 am
Main request1.1 Novelty (Article 54 EPC 1973)[...]1.1.8 In summary, the subject-matter of claim 1 thus lacks novelty at least with respect to E1 (Article 54 EPC 1973).2. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
As the present disclaimers have the purpose of restoring novelty over D4b, it is necessary in view of the criteria developed in decision G 1/03 for allowability of disclaimers introduced to restore novelty to determine whether D4b published between the priority date claimed and the filing date represents state of the art pursuant to A 54(3) or a disclosure pursuant to A 54(2). [6] In the context of assessing whether D4b is state of the art pursuant to A 54(3) or A… [read post]
1 Oct 2020, 11:16 pm
1. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 9:41 am
In January of this year, 54-year-old Joyce Renee Phillips was sentenced to nine to 15 years in prison for killing Michael Richardson in 2004. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 6:09 am
But he does say this:Minority voters are a different matter. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 254/93 it was decided that the mere explanation of an effect obtained when using a compound in a known composition, even if the effect was not known to be due to this compound in the known composition, cannot confer novelty to a known process if the skilled person was already aware of the occurrence of the desired effect (see headnote 2 and point [4.8] of the reasons).[36] Thus the subject-matter of claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of A 54; the… [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Thus the priority document does not unambiguously assign the components (b) cited in claim 1 as granted to a specific group. [read post]
