Search for: "Downloader 94"
Results 221 - 240
of 392
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2012, 5:01 pm
[…]Request for referral to the EBA of Appeal (EBA)[5] The appellant requested that, in the event of any of the main request or auxiliary requests 1 and 2 not being granted, three questions be referred to the EBA (in the following “referral questions”) as a divergence existed between, on one hand, decisions T 472/88 and T 975/94 and on the other hand T 868/04 and T 725/08. [read post]
23 May 2012, 5:01 pm
[3] A 110 […] provides that, if the appeal is admissible, the board has to examine whether the appeal is allowable. [4] In the present case, however, the European patent application in respect of which the first-instance examination under A 94 was carried out and which is the subject of the appealed decision was finally deemed to be withdrawn after the appeal had been filed due to the non-payment of the renewal fee and the additional fee and no means of redress against this finding… [read post]
19 May 2012, 11:01 am
Moreover, it is the total information content of the original application as filed that matters (see T 873/94) and, in the Board’s view, the same applies to the earlier application as filed. [read post]
16 May 2012, 5:01 pm
The values of the starting material being 51.6%, 8.8% and 3200 ppm, the reduction can be calculated: Example 17: 8% AZE, 100% ACH and 94% AOX Example 18: 1% AZE, 83% ACH and 79% AOX. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:09 pm
The fact that they lost 94 of 99 complaints is telling. [read post]
10 May 2012, 5:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.To have a look at the file wrapper, click here. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 10:05 pm
" 94% of Fortune 500 companies are testing or deploying the iPad. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
As can be seen from the basic proposition for a revision of the EPC of October 13, 2000 (MR/2/00, Number 6, A 122), the lawmaker wanted to keep the possibility of re-establishment into the time limit for further processing, which had been acknowledged by the case law (J 12/92 [3.2.2]; J 29/94 [3], J 902/87 [2.2-4]). [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm
To download a pdf of the complete article, click here. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
J 37/89 [4.2-3]).[1.2] Irrespective of the fact that the representative of the appellant himself bears the costs for the appeal proceedings, the Board considers – in favour of the appellant, in the name of which the appeal has been filed – that it is the appellant itself and not its representative – who, from the procedural point of view, is not adversely affected – that is party to the appeal proceedings.[1.3] The other requirements of A 106 to 108 are fulfilled; the appeal… [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
The Board comes to the conclusion that the amendment in claim 1 of the main request extends the scope of protection and, therefore, violates A 123(3).Incidentally, this is another reminder (see also another recent post) that disclaiming products identified by their trade names is a very dangerous enterprise.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
To download the whole decision, click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 4:00 pm
The Defendants are the major UK Internet Service Providers (holding a 94% market share), including BT, Sky, Virgin Media and TalkTalk. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 2:24 am
For judgment, please download: [2012] UKSC 1 For the Court’s press summary, please download: Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Both the patent proprietor and the opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent under consideration in amended form. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) maintaining the patent in amended form.Claim 1 as upheld by the OD read: “1. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here.NB: Other interesting decisions on double patenting can be found here and here. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The individual sections of a document must not be considered separately from the other parts but have to be seen in the overall context (see T 312/94).[2.2.1] For this reason alone figure 1 cannot be used (gewürdigt) in isolation from the remainder of the document and in particular from figure 2.[2.2.2] The fact that figures 1 and 2 show the same eccentric screw pump also hinders [the skilled person from using figure 1 in isolation] . [read post]
