Search for: "Downloader 91"
Results 301 - 320
of 424
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
” (see T 934/91). [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
When an Opposition Division (OD) raises new objections during oral proceedings (OPs) and asks you whether you wish to file amended claims, think twice before declining the offer, because doing so may shut the door to filing such amendments in appeal proceedings.In the present case, the patent proprietor had introduced the feature “… so that the space requirement in the building is substantially limited to the space required by the elevator car and counterweight on their paths including… [read post]
10 May 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, A 123 proved fatal to the requests on file.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
7 May 2011, 11:01 am
A further criterion for the selection of the most promising starting point is the similarity of technical problem (see T 495/91, T 570/91, T 439/92, T 989/93, T 1203/97, T 263/99). [read post]
3 May 2011, 5:40 am
The statistics can be downloaded in Excel or CSV format here. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
Though decisions T 435/91 and T 409/91 deal with cases in which the result to be achieved is part of a product claim, the board takes the view that these decisions equally apply to process claims. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
EBA decisions G 9/91, G 8/91, G 7/91 and G 1/99 have underlined that inter partes appeal proceedings are to be considered as judicial proceedings proper to an administrative court.In particular, G 9/91 has stated that the main purpose of inter partes appeal proceedings is to give the losing party the possibility of challenging the decision by which it is adversely affected and to obtain a judicial decision on the correctness of the first instance decision. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The EPO has to examine the admissibility of an opposition of its own motion, at any stage of the opposition and subsequent opposition appeal proceedings (T 289/91). [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
Additional comments were provided in the contested decision indicating that the ED was also of the view that the claims were not supported by the description (A 84).Claim 1 on file before the Board read:A system for gathering information from an environment, the system comprising : - RFID tags to be provided on objects and transmitting information on the associated objects, and - a humanoid robot provided with a computing device, the computing device comprising: visual sensing means for gathering… [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision deals with a request for re-establishment. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The question though is whether the OD was right to raise the ground later of its own volition. [8] The message of the EBA in G 9/91 and G 10/91 is clear; as stated above, new ground can only be introduced by an OD in exceptional circumstances and only when prima facie relevant. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
When deciding whether or not to remit the case according to A 111(1) the Board examined if such special reasons exist in the present case. [18] According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal the violation of the principle of the right to be heard is considered as a fundamental deficiency in proceedings (see T 125/91). [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
According to the established case law of the Boards of appeal (see, for instance, T 105/94) a ground for opposition that has not been substantiated is deemed not to have been raised.According to decision G 10/91 [18] of the EBA, in order for a new ground of opposition to be examined in appeal proceedings, the patent proprietor has to give its approval to the introduction of a this new ground.In the present case the [patent proprietor] has refused its approval, so that the ground of lack of… [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm
You can view or download the case here: In re Morrow © 2011, Melinda Deel. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, also this argument of the patent proprietor cannot justify the allowability under A 123(3) of the auxiliary request.[2.1.4] The Board remarks also that the decisions G 3/89 and G 11/91, cited by the patent proprietor during oral proceedings, regard only the allowability of a request for correction of an error and the relationship between R 88 EPC 1973 and A 123(2). [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Moreover, the above finding is not contrary to the decision G 9/91 [18], which states that “The purpose of the appeal procedure inter partes is mainly to give the losing party the possibility of challenging the decision of the OD on its merits. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Should you wish to download the whole decision or have a look at the file wrapper, just click here.NB: I have reported on another aspect of decision T 2030/07 in a previous post. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 3:51 am
” Fonte: Valor Econômico em 22/12/10 Download as PDF [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 1:02 am
Guest: Mike Wood, founder of LeapFrog and Smarty Ants Download or subscribe to this show at twit.tv/twil. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 7:39 am
A blacklined version can be downloaded here. . [read post]
