Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 201 - 220
of 5,916
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
The decision was based on the request filed on October 31.The Board of appeal found that the applicant’s right to be heard had been violated:Fundamental deficiencies[3] The appellant contests the decision of the ED essentially for both procedural and substantive matters. [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 5:01 pm
The standard to be applied in deciding whether the claimed priority date is to be acknowledged is whether this subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority document D28 as a whole (see decision G 2/98 [headnote]). [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Sure enough, the former lower limit - i.e. 0.33 - was not disclosed in the priority document, but the new lower limit - i.e. ] 0.33 - is not, either.Second, by allowing this disclaimer, the Board accepts a disclaimer that not only re-establishes novelty over an A 54(3) document, which is acceptable under G 1/03, but also (in the eyes of the Board) re-establishes priority, which is not something that G 1/03 had allowed.All in all, a very questionable decision.If you wish to read the… [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 1:48 pm
” Whether Anucort was on the market illegally was a matter for the FDA, and anyway Laser failed to allege or demonstrate how it was injured “as a result of [G&W’s] misconduct. [read post]
16 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 1067/08 [7.2, 8.1]). [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 3:50 pm
The likeness of inter partes appeal proceedings to proceedings before an administrative court has been underlined by G 9/91, G 8/91, G 7/91 and G 1/99. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 7:57 pm
" To make matters far worse, Overstock.com violated Regulation G by using an improper EBITDA calculation that caused the company to materially overstate its financial performance. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
It also commented on added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, though these comments were said not to form part of the decision. [read post]
10 May 2021, 1:00 am
Final thoughtsThe decision in T 1839/18 is unsurprising, given the long history of Boards of Appeal case law supporting the principle of "any person" opposition since the landmark decisions on straw man opposition in G 3/97 and G 4/97. [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 5:51 am
Supp. 115, 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); Application of Sentinel Gov't Sec., 530 F. [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
See G 2/92 [2], J 3/09 [3.5.2] and T 2495/11 [2.1-2]. [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:01 pm
In decision T 246/86 [2.2], the board found that the abstract does not form part of the disclosure for the purposes of A 123(2). [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In fact, the OD held that the parties agreed that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from A2 only in that the longitudinal was supported by the projections […].[2.5] [The opponent] did not contest the correctness of the minutes but rather the above interpretation of its declaration. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:47 am
Even assuming that P&G’s ads conveyed a superiority message for Fusion Power, the ads didn’t assert superiority on specific attributes such as closeness, comfort, irritation and pressure. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1459/05 [4.3] the board decided not to adopt the existing jurisprudence, according to which there was no power to examine matters of clarity under A 84 when the amendment consisted of a combination of claims as granted. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 12:18 pm
But there isn’t much of that going on these days. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
This means that, contrary to the suggestion of the [patent proprietors], the board’s decision concerning A 123(2) is not res judicata and was open to challenge, for example by an opponent citing A 100(c) in the notice of opposition; this would be comparable to the situations arising in T 1099/06 and T 167/93. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 2:26 am
As held by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 1/97 (OJ EPO 2000, 322), the jurisdictional measure to be taken in response to requests based on the alleged violation of a fundamental procedural principle and aimed at the revision of a final decision of a board of appeal should be the refusal of the requests as inadmissible. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 2:17 am
In view of the fact that the position of an opponent cannot be freely transferred (decision G 2/04, OJ EPO 2005, 549, headnote), any transfer has to be proven by proper evidence, see decision T 960/08 of 1 December 2011, reasons 2.2:"It follows from this procedural principle that the procedural validity of a transfer of opponent status is dependent on the submission of a duly substantiated request and on production of documents providing evidence of legal succession within the… [read post]
13 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
(G 2/88 [4]). [read post]
