Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3061 - 3080
of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
16 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor appealed against the decision of the opposition division (OD) revoking the patent under consideration ; claims 1 of the main request and the second auxiliary request on file was found to lack inventive step.During the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board, the patent proprietor filed a main and five auxiliary requests.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board was very similar to the second auxiliary request on which the OD had decided (additions underlined):1. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request was identical with claim 1 as granted:Paint and coating material system comprisinga) at least one solid component comprising at least one organic or inorganic white, black or chromatic pigment, organic or inorganic fillers, or mixtures thereof, andb) at least one binder component;characterised in that the components of the system in water, with an energy input of less than 150 J/cm3, based on the sum of the volumes of the components and water, result in an aqueous… [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 1:49 pm
The opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to maintain the patent in amended form.The decision contains an interesting paragraph dealing with the novelty of claim 5 of auxiliary request 5, which readMoulded article (Formkörper) for the non-systemic control of parasitic insects on animals, comprising imidacloprid in a mixture with synergists or other active compounds.*** Translation of the German original ***[6.3] Claim 5 of auxiliary request 1 is directed to a… [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
When inventive step was discussed, the [patent proprietor] argued that the skilled person in the art was an embryologist and would never have consulted any of the documents E3 to E5 belonging to the field of crystallography. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
Has it ever occurred to you that 20 is too young to die and that patents should live longer ? [read post]
30 May 2017, 11:27 am
I'm cutting down on my collection a bit as I move. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent.The decision contains an interesting passage on oral submissions by an accompanying person during oral proceedings (OPs):[2.1] In a letter dated 15 October 2012, the appellant’s representative, Mr Heimdal, requested permission for Mr Malmqvist, who would accompany Mr Heimdal to the OPs, to make oral submissions. [2.2] During the course of the OPs, [opponent I] requested that Mr Malmqvist should not be allowed to speak. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 3:03 pm
[5.2] Claim 5 is amended over claim 14 as granted by reciting that the aluminium alloy of the workpieces is a corrosion-resistant precipitation hardened high-strength aluminium alloy. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Now that the hot days are back, let us study a sunscreen decision. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the patent under consideration.By communication of 20 June 2011, the Board summoned the parties to oral proceedings (OPs) scheduled for 21 September 2011 and forwarded its provisional opinion to them. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 3:03 pm
If, when preparing oral proceedings (OPs) in an opposition appeal case, you realize that a document you used in an inventive step argument (but which you did not use in your - first instance - novelty attacks) is in fact destructive of novelty, are there any chances of having the novelty argument examined in the OPs? [read post]
24 Jan 2010, 3:05 pm
This decision deals with an appeal against the refusal of an application for lack of inventive step. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
It is not advisable to file unannounced experimental evidence just one month before oral proceedings (OPs), because in most cases the Board will refuse to take such evidence into account. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
This decision contains a useful statement on what the skilled person would do.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:A method of forming a polymer array comprising a substrate and 100 or more groups of polymers with diverse, known sequences coupled to the surface thereof in discrete, known locations, the density of said groups being at least 1000 per cm², wherein said discrete known locations are separated from one another by inert regions, and wherein said polymers are delivered to… [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Invoking a lack of clarity of one’s own application is always a risky endeavour. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 3:03 pm
[…] The Respondent argued firstly that document D11a could not be regarded as the closest prior art, since it could not be regarded as a document, as it was merely the English translation of 23 from a total of 167 paragraphs of the Japanese document D11. [read post]
