Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 241 - 260
of 5,916
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2013, 5:01 pm
If, on the other hand, it is doubtful whether that information is incorrectly defined, then a correction is ruled out (points [2] and [3] of the reasons).[3] The opinion G 3/89 of the EBA, supra, held furthermore that any correction under R 88 EPC 1973 (corresponding to R 139) is of a strict declaratory nature and thus has not to infringe the prohibition of extension of subject-matter under A 123(2) (see Headnote 2). [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 3:07 pm
polypeptide. [11] The board, however, does not consider the clones of the IMAGE Consortium to have made "available to the public" in the sense of decision G 1/92 the subject-matter in question. [read post]
10 May 2010, 3:02 pm
T 289/91 [2]; T 960/95 [2]). [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Whether or not a limiting feature is to be considered as added subject-matter within the meaning of A 123(2), can, of course, only be decided on the basis of the facts of each individual case (see G 1/93 [17]). [11] According to T 384/91 [5], an undisclosed added feature at least should not be considered as merely limiting the protection conferred by the granted patent without providing a technical contribution to the invention as claimed, if it interacts with the… [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Thus, the question to be decided on this appeal is whether this refusal is an appropriate exercise of the discretion given to the ED under R 137(3). [3] Guidance on the principles to be applied can be derived from the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 7/93, as summarised in decision T 1064/04: (a) Until the issue of a decision to grant the patent, the ED has a discretion under Rule 137(3) EPC whether or not to allow the amendment of the application at a late stage (G… [read post]
15 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
G 1/04 [6.2]). [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the possible unclarity originates from this amendment and the objection raised by the [opponent] as to the clarity of claim 1 with regard to component (g) is allowable. [1.3] It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of the Appeal of the EPO that, in order to insure legal certainty, a claim must clearly define the matter for which protection is sought (see T 728/98 [3.1] as well as T 337/95 [2.2-5]).Insofar as component (g) is concerned,… [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm
In particular the board has examined whether the subject-matter of claims 11 and 12 has a technical character because the claimed program, when run on a computer, causes a “further technical effect” (see T 1173/97 [9.4]). [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 1:29 pm
GAO invited SBA to comment on the matter. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
Saxe dated 21 October 2016D55 Employment agreement between UDEC Pharmaceuticals Inc. and R.RotherD56 Quitclaim Assignment dated 31 July 2007D57 President's comments on G 1/12 filed by respondent I with letter of 8 March 2017VI. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
” (see G 9/92 and G 4/93 [11]). [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
As mentioned in G 1/07 [4.3.1], the question of whether or not a surgical step can be omitted has to be assessed under A 84 and depends on whether the claimed invention is fully and completely defined by the features of the claim without that step, which is not the case here as explained above. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The decisions T 0848/93 and T 0304/08 are based on different facts and cannot be regarded as divergent decisions.VII. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The decisions T 0848/93 and T 0304/08 are based on different facts and cannot be regarded as divergent decisions.VII. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
(In this context, attention is drawn to decisions T 1233/05 [4.4], T 230/07 ([headnote, 4.1.6] and T 1130/09 [3.2] according to which the demonstration of a technical effect over a sub-range is not decisive for acknowledging novelty. [read post]
14 Jul 2018, 4:13 am
No matter how strongly the social justice warriors of the ABA believe it’s the right thing to do, state bars can’t constitutionally force lawyers to only speak happy words. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:06 pm
T 910/06 [5.9.5]), this does not apply when the accompanying person is, as in this case, identified solely as an employee of an opponent or an affiliated company of the opponent which employee further is not identified as performing a technical function associated with the subject-matter of the patent in suit, nor as having had any involvement, even peripherally, in the preparation of the disputed experimental data. [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Furthermore, the Board held that as a direct result of the patentee’s own tactical choice, the matter of the appeal proceedings had been limited from the broader version of the claims to a much more restricted subject-matter by limiting the feature (g). [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 8:13 am
Contact your attorney, or call us if you need one as soon as possible to help with any of these types of matters. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The board also comes to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot claim priority from the US application No. 835,799, but by a line of reasoning which differs from that of the OD. [7] A 87(1), inter alia, stipulates that the right to priority for the purpose of filing a European patent application can only be enjoyed insofar as the earlier application and the later European application disclose the “same invention”. [8] In its decision G 2/93 [5] and… [read post]
