Search for: "Does 1-54"
Results 281 - 300
of 3,380
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2017, 4:47 am
Moreover, a clamping connection does not necessarily require a corresponding ridge, nor does it necessarily define a specific site or seat. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
(¶1.) [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
The patent under consideration was opposed on the grounds of lack of novelty (in particular over A 54(2) document D1 and A 54(3) document D4). [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 12:33 am
The board sees no reason to deviate from this conclusion as regards the subject-matter of claim 1 of the present main request.3.3 The board thus concludes that the subject-matter of claim 1 is novel over the cited documents D1 to D5 (Articles 52(1) and 54 EPC). [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 10:08 am
§ 285 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 10:08 am
§ 285 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). [read post]
20 Apr 2013, 3:02 pm
Oshawa (City) (2012), 113 O.R. (3d) 54 (Ont. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:38 am
The appeal is against the decision of the Examining Division refusing European patent application No. 06 790 328.6 (published as WO 2007/041767) on the ground that claim 1 of the sole request lacked novelty within the meaning of Articles 54(1) and (2) EPC.II. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
It is not easy to prove that something does not work, and you certainly have to provide good evidence, as the present decision illustrates.Claim 1 of the main request on file read:1. [read post]
8 May 2017, 12:43 am
However, document D2 did disclose such an automated use of the system in claims 35-38.The Board does not agree with the Examining division and offers the following catchwords:In determining what is made available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC by a prior art patent document, it must be borne in mind that it is the description which chiefly serves to disclose the invention in a manner that it may be carried out, whereas the chief function of the claims is to… [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
ppm of oxygen at the oxidation reactor’s outlet. [2.7] For the above reasons, claim 1 does not meet the requirements of A 54(1) and (3) (document D1 being state of the art under the meaning of A 54(3)). [read post]
8 Feb 2018, 3:36 am
Otherwise, the ground for refusal or invalidity laid down in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95 could be interpreted very broadly and improperly having regard to its objective” [para 54]The AG ruled out that the trade mark’s reputation is to be considered as part of the assessment for this ground for refusal. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 6:03 am
What does it take to be a venture capital fund manager? [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:32 am
Ct. at 2252-54, 53 L. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The decisions invoked by the patent proprietor all concern the situation where the content of the disclosure was to be assessed on the basis of the figures only, which is not the case here.[1.4] As D3 discloses all the features of claim 1, the subject-matter of this claim is not novel (A 54).Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
24 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the rejection of the opposition against the patent under consideration.Claim 1 as granted read:1. [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 10:18 am
Finally, the dispute in this case also relates to the public-policy clause in Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 8:13 am
App. 333, 334(1), 535 S.E.2d 335 (2000). [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
Since the effective date for the subject-matter of the main request was the filing date of the patent, namely 16 February 2005, the public prior use was state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) EPC and it destroyed the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1.The case should not be remitted to the opposition division if the Board finds the priority invalid. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
Since the effective date for the subject-matter of the main request was the filing date of the patent, namely 16 February 2005, the public prior use was state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) EPC and it destroyed the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1.The case should not be remitted to the opposition division if the Board finds the priority invalid. [read post]
