Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 261 - 280
of 53,767
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
T 129/88 [2.2.1-4]). [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
In decision T 222/85 [4], the board held that the requirement in R 55(c) was only satisfied if the contents of the notice of opposition were sufficient for the opponent’s case to be properly understood on an objective basis, from the point of view of a reasonably skilled man in the art to which the opposed patent related.[2.3] Regarding the extent to which the European patent is opposed, the [opponent] on page 1 of the notice of opposition as well as on page 2 of Form 2300,… [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:16 am
(L.R.) and T. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
In particular it provided information about whether the subject matter of the patent was inventive and/or sufficiently disclosed. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
The request should state the name and qualifications of the accompanying person, and should specify the subject-matter of the proposed oral submissions. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 4:35 pm
It may not matter what or how many carrots you dangle in front of your employee. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 1:25 pm
. “Isn’t it interesting that no matter what the current global crisis is, according to leftists, the solution is always the same: a benevolent world dictatorship of the enlightened elite, and mass transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor nations.” [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Pursuant to R 99(2), “[i]n the statement of grounds of appeal the [applicant] shall indicate the reasons for setting aside the decision impugned, or the extent to which it is to be amended, and the facts and evidence on which the appeal is based”.[10] Under the established case law the grounds for appeal should specify the legal or factual reasons on which the case for setting aside the decision is based. [read post]
PROF. JACOBSON: “Doesn’t Media Matters, with all its new Soros money, have anything better to do th…
14 Mar 2011, 9:16 am
JACOBSON: “Doesn’t Media Matters, with all its new Soros money, have anything better to do than take my posts out of context? [read post]
THIS SEEMS QUITE WRONG TO ME AS A MATTER OF FIRST AMENDMENT DOCTRINE: Facebook “likes” aren’t speec…
29 Apr 2012, 7:43 am
THIS SEEMS QUITE WRONG TO ME AS A MATTER OF FIRST AMENDMENT DOCTRINE: Facebook “likes” aren’t speech protected by the First Amendment–Bland v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the refusal of an application by the Examining Division (ED).The Search Division (SD) had issued a declaration under R 45 EPC 1973 that the claims were directed at non-technical subject-matter excluded from patent protection or notorious technical means for their implementation. [read post]
24 Dec 2011, 11:01 am
Remains only one decision T 1459/05, which was decided on 21 February 2008. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 5:50 am
Whether the facts presented are or will be proven is a matter of reason. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The fact that the recipient (here: the PR) takes notice of the mail only several days or even weeks after [the receipt] is not relevant because the only legal condition, i.e. the delivery to him, is fulfilled (T 247/98 [1]; T 172/04 [4]; T 743/05 [1.6-8]; T 261/07 [1.6]; T 529/09 [4]).Decision T 703/92, which has been invoked by the [opponent] is not to be understood differently. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Therefore, a reimbursement of the appeal fee is not possible based on the wording of R 67, first sentence. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 2:20 pm
So, for that matter, has this, alas. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
The ED and the Board both came to the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm
This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) gets active on copyright matters, signing a trio of letters related to piracy and Copyright Office matters; Karyn Temple leaves her post as Register of Copyrights at the Copyright Office; the Supreme Court decides Peters v. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
To that extent, the decision does indeed not comply with R 68(2), first sentence, EPC 1973. [read post]
15 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
R 29(1) EPC 1973 specifies that the matter for which protection is sought be defined in terms of the technical features of the invention. [read post]
