Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 221 - 240
of 5,916
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm
The BoA concludes that indeed such a delay can be considered a substantial procedural violation (in line with T 823/11 but deviating from T 1824/15). [read post]
27 Jul 2012, 9:47 am
[print_link] NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 6:57 am
A case in point is a recent civil penalty case, In the Matter of: Robert M. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 9:40 am
NO MATTER HOW BAD THE EXPERIENCE. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 11:08 am
(Kikkerland Design Retro alarm clock / handout photo) An interesting opinion, in In the matter of B & G (Eng. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 12:57 pm
Edward T. [read post]
8 Sep 2008, 1:01 pm
Whether John McCain's lead over Barack Obama is 10 points, or 3 points, or somewhere in between doesn't matter. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
In support of this argument, [opponent 1] referred to the decision T 1239/03 [3.3.2]. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 3:16 pm
Via Eric Alterman at Media Matters, Karen Tumulty at Time has a long article on presidential wives, past and hopeful. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 1:00 am
An opposition was filed against the granted patent under Article 100 (a), (b) and (c) EPC on the grounds that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step, was not sufficiently disclosed and extended beyond the content of the application as filed.III. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
The lack of legitimate interest of an applicant in obtaining two patents for the same subject-matter - as invoked by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decisions G 1/05 and G 1/06 - could not be invoked when the scopes of protection conferred by the respective subject-matters overlap only partially with each other as there was no manifest objective reason to deny the legitimate interest of the applicant in obtaining a protection different from - although partially… [read post]
15 May 2023, 12:28 am
T 1057/15, T 1069/14). [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 5:14 pm
" It doesn't matter if the T&G prescreened the comments, allowed other users to flag the comment as abusive (which Delle did) and decided not to act after users had flagged the comment as abusive. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 11:01 am
Both are mentioned in headnote 2.1 of G 1/03, but A 54(3) prior art is not necessarily accidental. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 and T 798/93. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The EBA answered the referred questions in its decision G 1/08. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 2:13 am
Rule 137(5) EPC is therefore not contravened.This is in line with the reasoning of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal T 507/11 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3), T 1285/11 (see Reason 2), T 1981/12 (see Reasons 4.1 to 4.5), and T 998/14 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3) dealing with similar circumstances. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 9:39 am
And the district court’s consideration of the strength of the evidence against the defendant, in weighing the bail factors listed in § 3142(g), didn’t impinge on the presumption of innocence because that’s a trial right that “has no application to a determination of the rights of a pretrial detainee. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 1:32 am
A method of treatment per se is considered excluded subject matter (Article 53(c) EPC). [read post]
6 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
The specific surface area of the adhesive layer 23 is from 10 to 100 m²/g […]. [read post]
