Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 241 - 260
of 20,128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2018, 3:17 am
(b) The appeal was admissible, essentially for the reasons set out in the provisional opinion of the Board. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 9:48 am
It’s wrong and we won’t be bullied. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
adjusting the dry matter content of the sol. [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]
6 May 2009, 6:23 pm
This is true both in law schools and in B schools. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
(b) The mist generator comprises a mist channelling funnel (Nebelkanaltrichter), and the water level sensor is provided at the height of the bottom edge of the mist channelling funnel(c) The water reservoir comprises a water overflow pipe (Wasserüberlauf) at the height of the water level sensor.As the present main request corresponds to t [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
It therefore provides the means to stop applicants, in reply to the first communication, dropping existing claims, replacing them by switching to unsearched and non-unitary subject-matter extracted from the description, i.e., claiming different subject-matter in sequence rather than simultaneously (T 274/03 [4], T 915/03 [3], T 1285/11 [2]). [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 6:01 pm
T 1685/07).Therefore, in the present circumstances of this case, the Board did not see any incentive not to admit this request when exercising its discretion pursuant to Article 13(1) RPBA. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Therefore, G 5/83 ([…] and A 54(5) EPC 2000, which according to the EBA in G 2/08 [5.9 ff.] is considered to fill the lacuna in the EPC 1973 which had been filled in a praetorian way by the EBA with G 5/83 and the case law based on that decision) has consistently been interpreted by the boards as not providing for the patentability of uses in any of the methods recited in A 52(4) EPC 1973 (or A 53(c) EPC 2000) involving means that are a “device” (see for example T 1314/05… [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 2:49 pm
Those matters are for the trier of fact alone. [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 9:43 pm
Though the emergency had been upheld by a panel of the court, I wasn’t sure if that was correct as a legal matter. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 5:07 am
An antitrust plaintiff that clears the Rule 12(b)(6) hurdle has shown antitrust injury and has satisfied both Twombly and Trinko. [read post]
10 Sep 2024, 8:52 am
Garland , Judge Carlos T. [read post]
3 Sep 2009, 4:35 pm
Specifically, it might be useful to consider whether the complaint in this case could have been dismissed under rule 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff hadn’t attached copies of the offending ads and webpages. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 10:01 am
If the statute has certain factors in it, and it doesn’t have other factors in it, and the court considers extraneous matters, isn’t that subject to appellate review? [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
”.No further passages of the description deal with the proportion of component (B). [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 2:07 pm
No matter how you plan to do your taxes this year, you likely don’t know what all of the numbers, letters and other information on those forms mean. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 12:15 am
G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, reasons 12.2.2, T 1145/10 of 26 February 2016, reasons 5). [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
B LLC v East Coast Fish Mkt. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 7:40 am
Since it wasn’t, res judicata prevents the use of Civ.R.60(B) as a substitute to collaterally attack the judgment. [read post]
