Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 281 - 300
of 20,007
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 according to the first auxiliary request is entitled to the priority of document D0 (A 87(1)(b)). [read post]
29 May 2017, 11:15 pm
(b) Claim 1 of the patent was not entitled to priority. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:47 am
Main request1.1 The opponent raised objections against claim 1 of the main request under Article 100(c) and (b) EPC. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
Since A 100(b) was a matter which had already been decided by the OD, the Board found it suitable not to remit the case only because further opponents had now provided new lines of argumentation within this ground of opposition. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
If you read the whole story, you will find interesting things on T 352/04 and on the requirements of R 80. [read post]
The Rule 54(b) Trap: Dealing with Non-final Orders in Cases with Multiple Claims or Multiple Parties
15 Nov 2010, 12:27 pm
Appellate courts simply do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal where the order being appealed from is not final. [read post]
3 May 2013, 4:48 am
So the fact that Hargis couldn’t overcome B&B’s challenge to the registration didn’t mean that B&B could meet its burden of persuasion on infringement. [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:27 am
The debate focused on the pending objections under Article 100(a) and (b) EPC raised with regard to claim 1 of the patent as granted.XI. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
The Board had something to say on this matter:*** Translation of the German original ***Substantiation of the ground of opposition[2.1] The [patent proprietor] has submitted that the ground of opposition under A 100(b) EPC 1973 had been insufficiently substantiated and, consequently, was inadmissible.The ground of opposition under A 100(b) EPC 1973 has been introduced into the proceedings by the OD […]. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 6:08 am
In a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA, the board inter alia raised objections under Article 123(2) EPC and under Article 83 EPC with respect to the subject-matter of the independent method claim.VII. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 5:50 am
P. 4(b)(1)(B)(i), herebyappeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order GrantingDefendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment (Docket Entry192) entered in the above entitled matter on December 22, 2008.DATED this 7th day of January, 2009.Respectfully submitted,MATTHEW W. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 6:21 pm
’, there is no Plan B. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the [patent proprietor] concluded that for the part of the subject-matter of the claims that did not concern carboxylic acid imides and methyl urea derivatives as components (b) the claim to priority had to be valid.[2.1.4] Claim 1 as granted comprises the following components other than carboxylic acid imides and methyl urea derivatives in group (b): phosphoric acid esters, thiadiazoles, isothiazolinones, imidazoles, guanidines, aromatic carboxylic acids, and… [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 2:15 pm
It doesn’t matter whether we—or other newspapers—opposed it, whether a vast majority of counties rejected it or whether legislators are happy with the outcome. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm
When Mother didn’t appeal the removal order, she established “the law of the case,” and that law established subject matter jurisdiction in South Carolina. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
The Board is of the opinion that this applies mutatis mutandis to a disclaimer trying to exclude subject-matter that is not encompassed by the claim at all. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 8:35 am
The district court nonetheless denied certification once more, because the putative class wasn’t cohesive enough under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
The present board holds that the principles set out in T 1212/97 (affirmed by T 12/01 [20]; T 667/01 [2]) apply to the present case. [5.5] In T 1212/97 [3] the Board did not consider evidence from the lecturer alone as being satisfactory evidence as to what was made available to the public at the lecture. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 5:06 pm
(b). [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 2:19 pm
Plus, I haven't handled a family law matter in least 15 years. [read post]
