Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 241 - 260
of 53,761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
On June 2, 2010, the appellant filed a request to the ED for correction of the decision according to R 140. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 9:27 am
"And the addictive stuff we love doesn’t have to be completely substanceless. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 9:07 am
Most things don’t matter. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
T 666/90, T 552/97 and T 1439/05), the fact that the final requests were not established contravenes the provisions of Article 113(2) EPC and is considered a substantial procedural violation. [3] The substantial procedural violation requires that the decision under appeal be set aside and justifies the reimbursement of the appeal fee according to R 67 EPC 1973 (applicable here, see J 10/07 [7]). [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The “non-human” disclaimer of claim 1, in a self-evident manner, and the disclaimers of claims 11 and 14, for the very reason that they reproduce the specific wording of R 28, do not remove more than is necessary to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
The purpose of the requirement to reason the decision is to enable the appellant and, in case of an appeal, also the Board of Appeal to examine whether the decision could be considered to be justified or not (see T 278/00; T 87/08 and T 1366/05).In the present case the ED decided against the Appellant, that the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the sole then pending request did not involve an inventive step (A 56). [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm
The European search report, which was transmitted to the then applicant by a communication dated 23 May 2006, cited the following two documents as technological background ("A" documents):D1: Baeza-Yates, R. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
His comments have been published in Proprieté Industrielle, Juillet-août 2010, p. 29. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
It is the established case law of the Boards of Appeal (see G 3/08, T 258/03, and T 424/03) that claimed subject-matter specifying at least one feature not falling within the ambit of A 52(2) is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of A 52(2) and (3). [read post]
4 Nov 2020, 10:14 am
De jure universal suffrage doesn't matter if de facto voter disenfranchisement happens in courtrooms. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 12:40 pm
I'm not saying that Brian Williams didn't lie, I'm saying it doesn't matter. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
[Opponents 2 to 4] relied on the decisions T 1067/08 and T 23/10 refusing late filed claim requests pursuant to Article 12(4) RPBA. [read post]
6 Oct 2007, 8:14 pm
REMEMBER: MEDIA MATTERS IS "NON POLITICAL. [read post]
30 May 2013, 5:01 pm
The four-month time limit laid down in the third sentence of A 108 concerns the filing of a statement of grounds of appeal, which is an entirely different matter. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor criticized this approach and cited T 737/92, which had stated, in point [2.2] of its reasons:… The legal framework of any opposition case is uniquely defined by (i) the extent to which a patent is actually opposed and (ii) the grounds (in the sense of A 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC [1973]) upon which it is opposed, whilst its factual framework is determined by the facts, evidence and arguments adduced and set out in the Notice of Opposition pursuant to R… [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
According to established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, to satisfy the requirement of R 68(2) a decision must contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which justify its tenor. [read post]
14 Jan 2017, 9:07 am
That case actually stands for the fact that an IJ can't relinquish his/her duty to decide a motion (or case!) [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
On the subsequent pages of the notice of opposition, the indication of facts, evidence and arguments concern exclusively the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
According to the minutes […] the OD has concluded that certain amendments did not extend the [claimed] subject-matter beyond the contents of the application as filed, but has identified an essential feature that was not found in claim 1 anymore. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Nevertheless, [the opponent] is of the opinion that the remaining product claims are still directed to subject-matter excluded from patentability by A 53(b). [read post]
