Search for: "Downloader 91"
Results 261 - 280
of 424
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
In T 613/91 the address was missing. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 9:38 am
Importantly, the streamed copy is not downloaded to the users’ device. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 8:05 pm
If download speeds matter to you, in my testing, ExhibitView was able to download a large PDF file from Dropbox almost three times faster than TrialPad, e.g., 32 seconds for ExhibitView and 91 seconds for TrialPad. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 11:01 am
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 6:04 am
[They said] they had learned that `inappropriate things’ had been downloaded to his IP address. . . . [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 11:01 am
Consequently, this decision concerns a different legal situation and is not applicable to the present case.The Board concludes that the wording “consisting essentially of” contained in claim 1 of auxiliary request 8 complies with the requirements of clarity of A 84 EPC 1973.Should you whish to download the whole decision, click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
In decision T 108/91, the competent board stated that the amendment of a granted claim to replace an inaccurate technical statement, which was evidently inconsistent with the totality of the disclosure of the patent, by an accurate statement of the technical features involved, did not infringe A 123(3). [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
[…]The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.To download the whole decision (in German), click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 11:22 am
A Comissão de Ciência e Tecnologia, Comunicação e Informática aprovou nesta quarta-feira (30) proposta que estende os benefícios fiscais da Lei da Informática (8.248/91) ao setor de jogos eletrônicos para uso doméstico. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
This is in line with G 10/91 [15-16], in which it is stressed that the grounds for opposition are linked to the “statement pursuant to R 55(c) EPC 1973”, with R 55(c) EPC 1973 requiring the opponent to present an indication of the facts and evidence in support of the grounds for opposition. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
To download the whole decision, click here.The file wrapper can be found here.NB : A good French summary is available on Le blog du droit européen des brevets. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 9:12 am
Facebook hosts over 7 million apps – 20+ million are downloaded daily. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 12:22 pm
Here's the relevant excerpt (in thanks for which you should go download a copy of the whole article, yes?) [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
Enablement[55] It is established case law that the disclosure of a European patent is only considered as sufficient in the sense of A 83 if the skilled person is able to obtain substantially all embodiments falling in the ambit of the claim (for example, decisions T 409/91 and T 435/91).[56] Yet, the concept of “sufficiency of disclosure over the whole scope of the claim” does not mean that, for a disclosure to be considered as sufficient, it has to be demonstrated that… [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
The appeal was finally dismissed because the cited ASTM standard and, as a consequence, the application did not explain how to measure thermal conductivity through a plane, and, therefore, violated A 83.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm
This exception, as such, has to be construed narrowly in connection with the interlocutory revision, and not as a broader entitlement for the first instance to decide whether an appeal is admissible (T 473/91, T 808/03, and Case Law of the Boards, 6th. edition 2010, VI.E.3.1, page 495). [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 1:20 pm
You can download a copy of the report here. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Therefore, contrary to the [patent proprietor’s] statement, document E15 does not have its origin in the party who had filed this document belatedly during the first instance.This being said, the Board cannot see an abuse of proceedings in the mere fact that that opponent 1 has filed document E15 which has its origin in opponent 2 only after the summons for OPs before the OD.Therefore, the decision of the OD to admit document E15 into the proceedings is not objectionable.Should you wish to… [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 remaining features of the… [read post]
