Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3101 - 3120
of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division to refuse its application, but then omitted to pay the renewal fee for the seventh year so that the application was deemed to be withdrawn before the date on which oral proceedings (OPs) were to be held. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 11:01 am
The present appeal was directed against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse the application under consideration.In its first communication, dated July 8, 2004, the ED had objected that the claims on file violated A 123(2) and also lacked conciseness due to the presence of two independent method claims 1 and 13, in violation of R 29(2) and A 84. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form. [read post]
10 Dec 2011, 11:01 am
This decision is not particularly noteworthy but it contains a statement on the attitude of the skilled person that might come in handy from time to time.[3.5] […] Nor is the Board convinced that the skilled person is generally disinclined to combine measures with the same effect. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 3:02 pm
The present decision is interesting because it puts into practice the teaching of G 1/07:Independent claim 1 of the sole request reads as follows: “Method for producing a magnetic resonance angiogram of selected vasculature in a subject, wherein a contrast agent has previously been introduced into the selected vasculature so that the intensity of the NMR signal of the vasculature dominates the intensity of NMR signals in other materials within an entire field of view, comprising the steps: a)… [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.The OD had admitted late filed documents D6 to D8 and found the main request to lack novelty over their disclosures. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 3:18 pm
Be warned - the present decision might definitely change your perception of Tex-Mex food. [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 11:01 am
This decision deals with the appeal of the patent proprietor against the revocation of its patent by the Opposition Division (OD), on the ground of lack of inventive step. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 12:01 pm
[3.1] The invention is concerned with blood processing systems, in particular with a system for the separation of whole blood on the one hand (see claim 1), and a method for collecting diluted mononuclear cells obtained from the separation of whole blood (see claim 4). [3.2] D1 discloses a system and a method for the centrifugal processing of a liquid, for example whole blood, to collect species which are sparse within the liquid, for example mononuclear cells […]. [3.3] The board regards D1… [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
This decision deals with the refusal of a divisional application from Amazon’s (in)famous “1-click” application for lack of inventive step. [read post]
15 May 2022, 9:00 pm
On average, more than a third of all fatal auto accidents during Memorial Day weekend involve drunk drivers. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 10:40 am
¿Alguien subió la grabación del programa del Viernes, o el link, para quien no lo vimos en vivo? [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 9:37 am
AP has a story titled Lessons from failed Cold War spy mission in China detailing the story related to STAROMA.One of the captured CIA operatives was John Downey, a graduate of Choate and Yale, who would go on to Harvard Law after his release from Chinese prisons. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor filed an appeal after the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the opposed patent in amended form.After expiration of the time limit for filing an appeal, the opponent filed a “cross- appeal” (Anschlußbeschwerde) but he finally withdrew this appeal.The patent proprietor requested the Board to maintain the patent as granted. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:19 am
On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 1585 The general practice of not awarding costs in care proceedings against a party, including a local authority, in the absence of reprehensible behaviour or an unreasonable stance, should not be subject to an exception in the case of discrete fact-finding hearings. [read post]
5 Jan 2013, 11:01 am
This is an examination appeal.The Examining Division (ED) had found claim 1 on file to violate A 123(2) and had made “further remarks” according to which the subject-matter of claim 1 was not sufficiently disclosed (A 83), claims 8 and 18 violated A 123(2), claims 2 and 4 to 18 were not clear (A 84), claim 18 was not new over D3 (A 54) and claims 1 and 8 did not involve an inventive step with respect to D3 (A 56).The appellant filed claims that overcame the A 123(2) objection, but the ED… [read post]
26 Dec 2009, 10:24 am
The examples of [document] D1 as such do not indicate that the polyisobutene dispersants have functionalities of "greater than 1.3" as required in present claim 1. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 9:47 am
23 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
In this case the opponent filed an appeal after his opposition had been rejected by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
This decision deals with an appeal against the revocation of the patent by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
