Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3041 - 3060
of 881,797
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
This decision deals with the following request for correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board of appeal, filed on July 12, 2012:The Board explained that it did not see any reason to correct the minutes.The opponent replied as follows, on September 19, 2012:Here is what the Board had to say on that matter:*** Translation of the German original ***[1] Contrary to the opinion of the respondent/opponent 3, as far as the contents of minutes of OPs are concerned, the relevant… [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 11:49 am
Representing Estate Trust Beneficiaries Fiduciaries: July 19-20 (Boston/Webcast) | Skills Training for Estate Planners: July 23-27 (New York) | Modern Real Estate Transactions: July 25-28 (San Francisco/Webcast) | International Trust Estate Planning: Aug. 16-17 (Chicago/Webcast) | Basic Estate Gift Taxation... [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:26 pm
A 19(2) EPC contains clear instructions as to how an Opposition Division (OD) has to be composed. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
Missing pages are one of the recurring problems to be solved in paper D of the EQE, but the problem also occurs in real life and may have dramatic consequences if it is not dealt with properly.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the opposition division (OD) revoking his patent which had been granted on the basis of a Euro-PCT application. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse the application under consideration, for the sole reason that the claims lacked unity within the meaning of A 82. [read post]
26 Nov 2011, 11:01 am
The opponent filed an appeal after the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the opposed patent in amended form.In what follows the Board dealt with the admissibility of documents D7, D8, D17, D18, D30 related to a seminar held in 1990, which documents had been filed belatedly during the opposition proceedings. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
[3.1] The respondent argued that A 100(c) had not been cited as a ground for opposition and, making reference to decision G 9/91, concluded that the board was not competent to examine whether or not the amendments are in accordance with the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
15 May 2010, 11:00 am
[2.5] The board notes that the definition of the matter for which protection is sought in claim 1 is somewhat broader than the preferred embodiment of the invention. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to revoke his patent. [read post]
18 Aug 2012, 11:01 am
This appeal was filed against the revocation of the patent under consideration by the Opposition Division. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
This decision also contains some interesting statements on prejudice.[4.3] The Respondent asserts that a prejudice against varying additive concentration in the fuel would dissuade the skilled person from following any of the above paths. [read post]
2 May 2010, 3:02 pm
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the examining division (ED) refusing a European patent application because the invention was not disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a skilled person (A 83 in combination with R 27(1)(e) EPC 1973).[3] During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has extensively amended the application documents. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
The application as filed contained the following claims:1. [read post]
24 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
Readers familiar with the case law of the Boards of appeal know that Boards are reluctant to change the dates of oral proceedings (OPs) once the summons have been sent. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
This decision – dealing with an opposition that had been rejected by the Opposition Division – contains some interesting statements on the scope of a claim the decisive parameter of which was affected by a considerable margin of error. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 11:02 am
The present decision deals with the decision of the Examining Division to refuse a patent application for lack of inventive step over a combination of documents D1 and D2.Claim 1 of the main request read:A railway monitoring system (100), comprising:an optical fiber (101) having a plurality of parts spaced apart along the length of the optical fiber, each part of the plurality being attachable to a respective portion of one of a pair of rails (103,105) of a track,an optical signal emitter (107)… [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 11:01 am
The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject the opposition.Claim 1 of the patent as granted read (in English translation):Builder-containing laundry detergent or cleaning composition comprising a water-soluble builder block, alkali metal percarbonate and a cellulose derivative capable of removing dirt, obtainable by alkylation and hydroxyalkylation of cellulose, and additionally a compound which releases an organic percarboxylic acid under… [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 9:37 am
A recent case out of New York, Summit Apparel v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Ye who have not amended before the ED, abandon all hope to do so later on.This is an examination appeal.The Examining Division (ED) had found the claims on file not to comply with the requirements of A 123(2).The Board confirmed this finding for the main request and the first auxiliary request and then dealt with the admissibility of auxiliary requests II and III that had been filed about one month before the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board.*** Translation of the German original ***[4.1] An… [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
As we have seen in the preceding post, Claim 1 of the main request read: A stabilized, concentrated, acidic antimicrobial composition characterized by forming a substantially clear diluted aqueous treatment composition upon dilution, said stable, concentrated, acidic antimicrobial composition comprising: (a) from 5% to 95%, by weight of said concentrated composition, of an organic acid; (b) from 1% to 80%, by weight of said concentrated composition, of a surfactant; (c) a stabilizing agent; (d)… [read post]
