Search for: "Downloader 93"
Results 201 - 220
of 435
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2013, 7:20 am
Robert Morgenthau 93 & still crusading for justice | Even at 93, He Finds a Case Too Important to Pass Up http://ow.ly/iXEgW Possible Canadian artists resale royalty? [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
The application underlying the patent in suit was filed as a divisional application of an earlier European application which was based on the international application published as WO 93/10765 (parent application P4). [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Can a loss of priority lead to a violation of A 123(2)? [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]
27 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
However, the fact that the representative did not make any mistake does not protect his client from the consequences of its own errors or negligence (J 3/93; T 381/93; J 16/93; J 17/03).The argument that the applicant could not have known which time limits [, if not met,] would result in the irrevocable loss of the application is not sufficient for establishing that all due care had been taken. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
It also decided that for the publication of the European patent application according to Article 93 EPC, the documents as originally filed would be used together with Figures 2, 3 and 4 filed on June 29 and August 5,2010. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
G 7/93 [2.5-6]).[2.2.2] The impugned communication of the ED, which is to be qualified as a decision, does not terminate the examination proceedings with respect to the appellant. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 6:50 am
You can find this information buried on page 93 of the instructions for the federal form 1040 (downloads as a pdf): 3. [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 11:01 am
This applies not only to features isolated from a given context in the description but also when taken from figures, see T 191/93. [2.4.2] Applying this approach to the present case the Board finds that in figure 2 the fact that the three teeth are adjacent is clearly functionally important in that it allows the pots to be picked up between them. [read post]
19 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In the present case the patent proprietor filed a request for re-establishment into the time limit for filing a notice of appeal.The factual situation was as follows (sorry for the length, but I find the modus operandi interesting):Mr Adrian F. had worked for 26 years in the law firm representing the appellant but had retired from the partnership on June 30, 2011. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 4:37 am
Daigle, 93 So.3d 657 (Louisiana Court of Appeals – 3d Circuit 2012). [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The board also comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot claim priority from the US application No. 835,799, but by a line of reasoning which differs from that of the OD. [7] A 87(1), inter alia, stipulates that the right to priority for the purpose of filing a European patent application can only be enjoyed insofar as the earlier application and the later European application disclose the “same invention”. [8] In its decision G 2/93 [5] and particularly… [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The present appeal concerns a decision of the Receiving Section (RS) of the EPO, dispatched on 22 December 2010, refusing the applicant’s requests that the invitation to remedy deficiencies pursuant to R 30(3) be withdrawn and the late furnishing fee refunded. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
For this reason the OD was wrong to hold that the PRP applied only to requests on whose allowability a decision had been taken by the Board of Appeal […]. [2.3.2] The reasoning of G 4/93 also does not imply that, as the opponent argued […], the PRP prevails only on condition that the factual situation at the time of the first instance decision is the same as on appeal by the opponent. [read post]
26 Jan 2013, 11:01 am
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The question addressed by the board is that of the admissibility of late filed requests, and in this respect, decision G 1/93 is silent. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 10:00 am
By Shafik Bhalloo and Gareth Carline In a recent criminal decision, R. v. [read post]
