Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3161 - 3180
of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
This decision also deals with objections under A 100(c) against the main request and several auxiliary requests.[6.1] In claim 1 of each of these requests, the coating composition is prepared by a process comprising at least two steps: the first ethylene polymer having a value of melt flow rate MFR12 comprised between 50 g/10min and 2000 g/10min is prepared, the second ethylene polymer having an MFR22 value lower than MFR12 is prepared. [read post]
15 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The outcome of the present appeal is likely not to please some of the Examiners among the readers of this blog. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
From time to time the problem-solution approach is challenged for being tantamount to an ex post facto analysis. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Admissibility of the ground of lack of novelty[2.1] In its notice of opposition, the opponent requested revocation of the patent as a whole under A 100(a) for lack of novelty and inventive step.[2.2] It is stated in the minutes of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the opposition division (OD) that, at the start of the OPs, the OD asked the opponent “whether he would be further pursuing the novelty objection raised in the Notice of Opposition” and that “the Opponent replied that he… [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
Both the patent proprietor and the opponent appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) maintaining the opposed patent in amended form.The Board found the main request and the first auxiliary request not to comply with the requirements of A 123(2). [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietors filed an appeal against the decision to revoke the patent under consideration.The decision dated March 29, 2012, – wherein this appeal was dismissed – also contains an interesting paragraph on a request filed on May 4, 2012, concerning a correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board. [read post]
13 May 2010, 3:01 pm
The present decision concerns an invention in the field of haemodialysis. [read post]
15 May 2010, 11:02 am
Readers interested in ‘surprising’ new case law only should not read on as the present decision is not of the surprising kind. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 11:01 am
This is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent by the Opposition Division (OD).The decision contains an interesting statement concerning the formal admissibility of the patent proprietor’s requests:[1] The [patent proprietor] filed the current set of claims according to a main request and two auxiliary requests together with its statement of Grounds of Appeal. [read post]
5 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision contains an interesting discussion on the reality of an alleged prior disclosure.The opponent (Osram) filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain Toshiba’s patent in amended form.[2.1] Document A21 is a copy of the original brochure allegedly distributed to the participants of the meeting “Arbeitstagung für Leuchtenhersteller” in January 1996. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
Le blog du droit européen des brevets has reported on two recent (still to be published) decisions on a test case built by two Dutch companies working together in the study committee for intellectual property of VNO-NCW, the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 3:20 pm
In a recent post we have seen a decision examining the credibility that a given problem had indeed been solved. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
From time to time decisions of the Boards of appeal refer to the so-called “secondary indicia” for inventive step such as the existence of a prejudice, commercial success of the invention, and so on. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 4:02 pm
Questioning the enablement of a potentially novelty destroying document appears to be relatively common in the field of chemistry, but – to my best knowledge – it is rare in the mechanical domain. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
The applicant filed an appeal after its application had been refused by the Examining Division (ED) for lack of clarity.Claim 1 before the Board read:A process for producing aliphatic polyesters having a weight-average molecular weight (Mw2) that falls within a numerical range as defined by the following numerical formula (2) and numerical formula (3) and having at least 50 % of aliphatic hydroxycarboxylic acid units, which comprises polymerizing a crystallized, aliphatic polyester prepolymer having… [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 5:01 pm
In this opposition appeal case, on the second day of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the board the patent proprietor submitted the following request:“we herewith request adjournment of the OPs scheduled for 17 and 18 September 2013 in view of the new lines of attack brought by the opponents under A 100(c) for the first time during the OPs of 17 September 2013, …”The Board refused to grant the adjournment:[1.3] The appellant-patentee’s request for adjournment of the OPs in… [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
** Translation from the German ** [3.1] Document D4 is an Australian provisional application which was not available to the public. [read post]
3 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
In a preceding post, we have seen that the Board admitted two third party interventions, each of which raised new issues, in particular under A 100(c). [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
If accidentally in your priority document you have referred to mm instead of ? [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 12:00 am
Certain driving behaviors — such as drinking and driving, texting and driving, and speeding — are well-known to be dangerous, and most conscientious drivers go to great lengths to avoid engaging in them. [read post]
