Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 301 - 320
of 20,007
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2019, 3:49 am
SB Yen Mgm’t. [read post]
13 May 2014, 7:55 pm
In re Packard, Plager Op., at *1.USPTO Interpretation of 112(b) During Examination is Different[T]he USPTO reads the statutory requirement that claims “particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the subject matter . . . [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
See T 336/07 [3.3.1]. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Other possible irregularities do not preclude rectification of the decision, since an applicant should have the right of examination in two instances (for example T 139/87, T 47/90, T 794/95).[4] Claim 1 of the request which formed the basis for the impugned decision has been amended such that present claim 1 is now directed to a system for humidifying gas for infusion into a patient eye comprising a gas source, as defined in former claim 5. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 6:33 am
In Matter of T.Y. v. [read post]
10 May 2014, 9:05 am
While in a B&B on a short overnight family-related roadtrip, I started reading a copy of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited that they had in the room, (I'm a big Waugh fan, but tend to prefer the snark, or for that matter the harrowing Ordeal of Gilbert Penfold, to the mellow mists of memory.) [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
Therefore, he always knows whether he was within our outside the claimed domain of protection.This is why the present case is not comparable with the problems which T 256/87 and T 252/02 had to deal with. [read post]
10 Sep 2018, 1:45 am
Article 123(2) EPC, extended subject-matter[...]4. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 8:56 am
The following documents, relevant to the present decision, were referred to by the parties:D1 US-B-6 269 910D4 WO-A-2007/020325D6 JP-A-2005 263371, and its translation D6bIV. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The disclaimer of claim 1 (“non-human”) excludes human beings in order to satisfy A 53(a) while the disclaimers of claims 11 and 14 exclude subject-matter which is not patentable under A 53(b) taken in combination with R 28, paragraphs b) and c). [4] The three disclaimers which exclude subject-matter not eligible for patent protection and only serve the purpose of removing specific legal obstacles do not contribute to the invention. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 6:58 am
(b) Hence, it was incumbent upon the examining division to present facts showing why the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main and only request then on file did not involve an inventive step.2.4.2 Next, the conditions under which the examining division fulfils the above obligation are to be examined. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 11:49 am
The NLRB’s decision doesn’t mean that wearing BLM is always a protected activity. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 7:56 pm
And what we want to do is help them move to, say, point B, which might be to get them back on track, to get them reaching their financial goals, whatever they might be. [read post]
25 Jul 2021, 7:56 pm
And what we want to do is help them move to, say, point B, which might be to get them back on track, to get them reaching their financial goals, whatever they might be. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 8:46 am
How can you reach the "substantial" threshold on a gateway (b) defence/counterclaim when you haven't had sight of the claimant's papers which may (or may not) enable your gateway (b) defence/counterclaim to be made out? [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 8:46 am
How can you reach the "substantial" threshold on a gateway (b) defence/counterclaim when you haven't had sight of the claimant's papers which may (or may not) enable your gateway (b) defence/counterclaim to be made out? [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
J 10/07, T 1366/04, T 1279/05). [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
The appellant (patent proprietor) lodged an appeal in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 2 159 174.The opposition of opponent/respondent I had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on the grounds of Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC (insufficiency of disclosure) and Article 100(c) EPC (unallowable amendments).The intervention of… [read post]
11 May 2018, 6:04 am
The appellant (patent proprietor) lodged an appeal in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period against the decision of the opposition division to revoke European patent No. 2 159 174.The opposition of opponent/respondent I had been filed against the patent as a whole and was based on the grounds of Article 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty and lack of inventive step), Article 100(b) EPC (insufficiency of disclosure) and Article 100(c) EPC (unallowable amendments).The intervention of… [read post]
16 May 2016, 9:15 am
Sierra Vista petitioned to have Doctor declared a vexatious litigator under CCP 391(b)(2) and was denied (i.e. [read post]
