Search for: "AT&T"
Results 2481 - 2500
of 881,747
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2013, 5:01 pm
This is a revocation appeal.Claim 1 of the main request was identical to claim 1 as granted and read:Immediate release fenofibrate composition with a dissolution of at least 10% in 5 minutes, 20% in 10 minutes, 50% in 20 minutes and 75% in 30 minutes, as measured in accordance with the rotating blade method at 75 rpm according to the European Pharmacopoeia, in a dissolution medium consisting of water with 2% by weight of polysorbate 80 or 0.025M of sodium lauryl sulphate. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.Claim 29 of the main request read:A method of imparting disruptive forces onto a target surface (57), comprising:using a moisture output to dynamically place a first layer of moisture in form of fluid particles and/or mist above a plurality of points of the target surface so that different parts of the first layer of moisture are simultaneously disposed over different ones of the plurality of points; andautomatically scanning electromagnetic energy via a scanner… [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
The present decision shows that examples of patent applications should be drafted with care. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This appeal was filed after the Opposition Division had revoked the opposed patent the claims of which were directed at hair cleaning compositions.The statement of grounds of appeal (SGA) contained a main request and two auxiliary requests.On October 23, 2012, the patent proprietor filed a new main request and new auxiliary requests 3 to 5.On November 12, 2012, the patent proprietor filed new pages 10ter comprising two tables with disclaimers, both for the main request and auxiliary requests.Oral… [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
The parties to opposition proceedings often file documents and requests just one month before oral proceedings (OPs), the common time limit set for such submissions. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
As most readers of this blog will be aware of, G 1/93 made the following statement:A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is… [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
The question of what information exactly drawings convey to the skilled person is not always an easy one and, as a rule, its answer depends on the circumstances of the case. [read post]
8 Dec 2020, 4:05 pm
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who accepted a fee while unlicensed leading to a felony conviction Janzen's license to practice law had been stricken from the membership rolls since September 20, 2004. [read post]
31 Jan 2021, 12:39 pm
Judge Fay had just turned 92. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:An automated method of removing embedding media from a biological sample, the method comprising the steps of:- heating the biological sample containing embedding media to a temperature in excess of the melting point of the embedding media to form a liquefied embedding media; and- applying a liquid including DI water and a surfactant to the biological sample to separate the liquefied embedding media from the biological… [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
In this case claim 1 of the patent as granted was attacked on the grounds of lack of novelty and of inventive step; dependent claim 4 only for lack of inventive step.In response to the preliminary opinion expressed by the Opposition Division (OD) the patent proprietor filed a new main request, claim 1 of which was a combination of claims 1 and 4 as granted.The opponent attacked this claim for lack of novelty.The patent proprietor requested the novelty attack not to be admitted as, in the notice of… [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 6:55 am
A reminder from the Seventh Circuit on the importance of creating a record – Lexology http://ow.ly/IReGaFiled under: Conflict [read post]
24 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke its patent.Claim 1 as granted read:A fungicidal mixture, comprising(1) 2-[2-(1-chlorocyclopropyl)-3-(2-chlorophenyl)-2-hydroxypropyl]-2,4 dihydro-[1,2,4]-triazole-3-thione (prothioconazole) of the formula I or its salts or adductsand(3) picoxystrobin of the formula Illor its salts or adducts in a synergistically effective amount.The Board had to examine whether this subject-matter involved an inventive… [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal of the opponent against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the opposed patent in amended form. [read post]
23 Feb 2013, 11:01 am
The present examination appeal decision is not surprising at all, but it nicely demonstrates the – rather strict – way in which A 123(2) is applied by the EPO nowadays.Claims 1, 12, 13, 26, and 27 as filed read (my emphasis):1. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.The statement setting out the grounds of appeal was received in electronic form three minutes after expiry of the four-month time limit for filing the grounds of appeal.The registrar of the Board informed the appellant of the late receipt of the statement setting out the grounds of appeal.The appellant responded by requesting the Board to decide under R 112(2) that the statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the relevant time limit or, in the alternative, to… [read post]
22 Oct 2012, 5:01 pm
It is well known that the EPO is quite strict when assessing whether amended claims contain “new matter” (A 123). [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
When amending claims during examining proceedings by adding features, thereby limiting the scope of protection, one has to be very careful because such amendments can lead into the most famous of the “inescapable traps”. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
In EQE papers the question of whether a priority application is a « first application » within the meaning of A 87(4) is often relevant and gives rise to quite tricky situations. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 11:00 pm
He's back! [read post]
