Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3141 - 3160
of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The possibility of having different claims for different designated states is nowadays governed by R 138. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm
In the present case, only the opponent filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the opposed patent in amended form. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:An apparatus (1) for a sorting system comprising an activating member (2), a fastening bracket (3), and a discharge arm (4) which at an end part (5) is pivotally connected with the fastening bracket (3) at a side (6) of a conveyor (7), where said discharge arm (4) by means of said activating member (2) is adapted for being swung between a passive position (9) approximately parallel to said side (6) of the conveyor (7) and a number of active angular… [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 11:01 am
The prohibition of reproducing a document can it prevent the document from being considered available to the public? [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The opponent filed an appeal against the maintenance of the opposed patent in amended form. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm
This decision – which Manolis mentioned in a comment recently – deals with the refusal of a Euro-PCT application by the Examining Division (ED).The application concerned a method for carrying out an electronic auction in a communication network.In December 2001, the EPO acting as ISA informed the applicant that it would not establish an ISR because it had been unable to spot a technical problem the solution of which could involve an inventive step.In April 2002, the EPO acting as IPEA… [read post]
20 May 2010, 3:02 pm
At the end of the oral proceedings before the Board, the patent proprietor requested that the following question be referred to the Enlarged Board of appeal:Can inventive step be negated if more than two documents have to be combined [in order to come to this conclusion] and if one claim feature is not at all known from the state of the art? [read post]
1 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision deals with an appeal filed by several opponents after the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the opposed patent in amended form.Claim 1 as granted read:Use of at least one dye, which dye is capable of staining tissue without diffusing through said tissue, for the manufacture of a staining composition for visualizing a lens capsule in an eye during performance of a capsulorhexis.NB: Capsulorhexis is a technique used to remove the lens capsule during cataract surgery.Claim 1… [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
Claim 1 of the patent as granted read (in English translation)Tablet with two end faces and a circumferential face, characterized in that the mutually opposite end faces of the tablet a) are on the whole non-planar and are arranged at least approximately parallel to one another, and b) are provided with a score on each of the top and bottom sides, the scores lying in the centre of the tablet parallel to and above one another, and characterized in that the tablet is provided at the edges, on the top… [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
This examination appeal would have gone unnoticed by me if Laurent Teyssèdre had not discussed it on his blog (here).The Examining Division (ED) had refused the application on July 7, 2011.In principle the time limit for filing an appeal expired on September 19, 2011.The appeal was filed on September 20.The appellant filed a statement of grounds of appeal as well as an auxiliary request for re-establishment.The core argument of the appellant was that the actual day of delivery was not July 19… [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 3:03 pm
[...] [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As we have seen in an earlier post, drafters of applications dealing with monomers and polymers have to be careful because it is easy to mix up these terms … and difficult to correct the resulting errors.The present appeal was filed after the Opposition Division (OD) had revoked the opposed patent. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal. [read post]
25 May 2016, 4:24 am
“A hearing panel ultimately concluded that both Ameriprise and Mr. [read post]
14 Apr 2012, 11:01 am
This is an appeal against the revocation of the patent by the Opposition Division (OD).The Board found the main request to lack inventive step and then discussed the admissibility of the auxiliary requests:*** Translation of the German original ***[4.1] At a very late stage of the appeal proceedings, i.e. about one month before the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board, the [patent proprietor] has filed for the first time amended claims according to auxiliary requests 1 and 2, in which features… [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
This is a revocation appeal. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 3:03 pm
[5.1] The Board considers the appellant’s request for remittal submitted by fax dated 2 March 2010 “if the Appeal Board is minded to refuse the Main, First, and Second Auxiliary requests, it be so kind as to allow remittal to the department of first instance so that the appellant can pursue a suitably amended Third Auxiliary request that complies with A 84 and A 123(2), in addition to being novel and involving an inventive step” (emphasis added by the Board) to be unclear for the… [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
[1] As apparent from the minutes of the oral proceedings, after the discussion on the inventive step of the first embodiment of claim 1 (polystyrene) had taken place and the board had signalled a positive finding, the [opponent] requested that the request not be admitted into the proceedings, insofar the method of claim 1 involved the use of a container made or coated with polyethylene terephthalate, the reason put forward for this procedural request being that said embodiment had not been… [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
[2.3] During oral proceedings before the Board the [opponent] filed a coloured copy of a table summarising the experimental results of Tables 1-4 of the patent in suit (document D23). [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 4:03 pm
[…] Claim 1, in addition to claim 1 as granted, contains a disclaimer in its section b) wherein it is "provided that the cells are not human embryonic stem cells". [read post]
