Search for: "AT&T"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 881,723
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
To my best knowledge, this decision – which in itself is not very exciting – is the first Board decision to apply the teaching of G 2/10 concerning the possibility of disclaiming disclosed embodiments.The opponent filed an appeal after the Opposition Division had rejected the opposition.The main request before the Board was identical to the set of claims as granted.Claim 1 of this request read:A food intake restriction device for forming a stoma opening in the stomach or esophagus of a… [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
Claim 1 of the main request read:A heating device (510) for use in an internal combustion engine having an intake (512) defining a passage, the intake including an opening in communication with the passage, the heating device comprising: a access panel (511) removably mounted to the intake and closing the opening; a frame (514, 516) coupled at one end to said access panel and extending into the passage, said frame including a first portion positioned substantially parallel to and spaced apart from a… [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
This decision on a revocation appeal contains (among other things) an interesting discussion of apportionment of costs.[45] A 104(1) provides that:“Each party to the opposition proceedings shall bear the costs it has incurred, unless the Opposition Division (OD), for reasons of equity, orders, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, a different apportionment of costs. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read (in English translation, based on the parallel U.S. application):Computer-supported method of producing and/or executing programme code (software code), with at least one visualisation surface for the representation of establishable objects, by way of which information is inputted and outputted when executing the programme code, wherein objects of the visualisation surface are writingly and readingly accessed by means of… [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
In this opposition appeal case the Board among other things had to decide on whether certain documents qualified as A 54(2) prior art.[2.3.1] The [patent proprietor] contended […] that documents D1, D3, and D14 might not be considered as prior art under A 54(2), as the evidence on file (such as the minutes of the respective 3GPP meetings, printouts of the 3GPP’s FTP directories, and printouts of email distributions) was insufficient to justify the conclusion that the respective… [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent by the Opposition Division.Claim 1 of the main request read (in English translation):Composition obtained by drying a suspension containing, on the one hand, alumina particles A having an aspect ratio of less than 15 and, on the other hand, precipitated silica particles B dispersible in a polymer medium.The Board found the invention to be insufficiently disclosed:*** Translation of the French original ***[1.1] The Board is of the opinion… [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 3:20 pm
I like this case because the patentee's attorney really tried all what could possibly be done in order to establish an inventive step. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
As we have seen in the preceding post, the main request filed by the patent proprietor was found to lack clarity. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
From time to time there are errors in decisions to grant a patent. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent by the Opposition Division (OD).Among other things, the patent proprietor complained that it had been deprived of the possibility to file further requests.The Board did not see things that way:*** Translation of the German original ***[2.4] The [patent proprietor] further criticised that the OD had terminated the proceedings although [the patent proprietor] had announced that it intended to file amended claims.However, [… the OD]… [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
In this case the Opposition Division had revoked the patent under consideration on the ground of insufficiency of disclosure.The case is interesting because page 6 of the application as filed (which was also present in the Druckexemplar) was omitted in the patent as published; this missing page was decisive for the question of sufficiency.The patent proprietor requested the reinsertion of the page; the opponent objected and pointed out that this would lead to a violation of A 123(3).The Board… [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Swiss-type claims are a dying species, but from time to time we still have decisions dealing with them.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read (in English translation):Use of an active substance in the form of microcrystals or microgranules comprising a coating that masks their taste and a mixture of excipients, wherein the mixture of excipients comprises one or more disintegrating agents and one or more swelling agents or soluble agents, for the manufacture of a rapidly disintegratable… [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:28 am
Posted by Danielle Chaim (Bar-Ilan University), and Gideon Parchomovsky (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), on Wednesday, May 8, 2024 Editor's Note: Danielle Chaim is an Assistant Professor at Bar-Ilan University Faculty of Law, and Gideon Parchomovsky is Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz Chair in Corporate Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Robert G. [read post]
26 May 2012, 11:01 am
This appeal was filed against the revocation of the opposed patent by the Opposition Division.One of the questions discussed by the Board was the validity of the claim to priority for Claim 1 of the main request, which read:1. [read post]
5 May 2011, 3:01 pm
In the present case the opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to maintain the opposed patent in amended form.The Board spots an A 123(2) problem:*** Translated from the German *** [1] The claims as filed concerned, on the one hand, a process for removing COS and other acid gases from a hydrocarbonaceous fluid stream containing CO2, COS and, as the case may be, other acidic gases as impurities (claim 1), and, on the other hand, a scrubbing liquor for removing of COS… [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 11:48 pm
Evidence Law Flowchart: Is A Statement Trustworthy? [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 11:01 am
This decision contains an interesting paragraph dealing with the admissibility of the opposition:[1] A natural or legal person filing an opposition must be identifiable at the latest at the end of the opposition period. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
This decision, one aspect of which (a request for exclusion from public inspection) was discussed in the preceding post, also contains an interesting passage on an alleged prior use.[2.1] The alleged prior use is based on D14, D15a and D15b as evidence that a closure assembly under the name “Alusnap” was launched or put on the market, i.e. at least offered for sale, before the priority date of the patent in suit. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Claim 1 of the patent as maintained by the Opposition Division read (in English translation):Implant (6) for the inter-vertebral space (25) withA) an essentially cuboid shaped body (7) with different diameters (D1, D2) between the lateral surfaces (14, 15) as well as between an upper surface (16) and a lower surface (17); whereby B) the lateral surfaces (14, 15) between which the smallest diameter (D1) extends are mostly parallel and flat; and with C) a device (8) for grasping by a tool (9),… [read post]
