Search for: "AT&T" Results 3181 - 3200 of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Dec 2009, 3:28 pm by Armand Grinstajn
This decision, which I discussed in my previous post, also contains a noteworthy paragraph on the rare situation where subject-matter is both disclaimed in the application, and described as being within the scope of the claim. [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 11:03 am by Oliver G. Randl
In this case, the patent was maintained in amended form by the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Claim 1 of the patent read: A method for purifying a polypeptide from a composition comprising the polypeptide and a contaminant, which method comprises the following steps performed sequentially: (a) binding the polypeptide to an ion exchange material using a loading buffer, wherein the loading buffer is at a first conductivity and pH; (b) washing the ion exchange material with an intermediate buffer at a second conductivity and/or pH so as to elute the contaminant from the ion exchange material;… [read post]
18 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the division of the Opposition Division (OD) revoking the opposed patent. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This appeal was against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse the patent application under consideration, on the basis that the independent claims in the main request did not satisfy R 29(2) EPC 1973, that claim 1 in the main request was not novel and that the auxiliary request contained subject-matter did not comply with A 123(2) EPC. [read post]
17 May 2010, 3:16 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Here is another example of an extremely severe application of A 123(2) by the Boards of appeal.Claims 1 and 4 to 7 as originally filed read:1. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver
In the present case the patent proprietors tried to experimentally establish sufficiency of disclosure. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This decision on an examination appeal is not very exciting but it offers us the opportunity of seeing a case where the Board applied G 2/10 after having construed the claims to comprise a disclaimer.Claim 1 of the main request on file read:A multi-zonal monofocal intraocular lens (60) having an optic (62) with two discrete concentric optical zones (70, 72) centered on the optical axis (OA), the zones adapted to focus incoming light rays to form an image from an object, comprising:a first lens… [read post]
30 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
In this case the Board dealt with a request for re-establishment into the time limit for filing a statement of ground of appeal.The representative and his contact at the opponent company, Mr Z., usually communicated by e-mail.The decision to maintain the opposed patent in amended form was issued on September 15, 2010.The time limits for filing an appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal were noted and checked by two paralegals.The representative informed the opponent of the notification of the… [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Imagine that you have filed an opposition and that the patent proprietor has made substantive observations, which the EPO has just transmitted to you for information. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Making a great discovery is one thing. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This decision, albeit not very exciting in itself, provides some insight into the attitudes of the skilled person. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
*** Translated from the French ***Claim 1 of the main request read:Bullet-proof armoured laminated glazing comprising, on at least part of its periphery, one or more rigid protuberances, each of these belonging substantially to a plane parallel to the surface defined by the glazing or in line with this surface, and having a thickness enabling it to be at least partly introduced, temporarily or permanently, into the rebate in the window opening, characterised in that the said or at least one of the… [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This decision also contains an interesting statement on remittals pursuant to A 111(1).Having found both requests on file to lack inventive step, the Board had to deal with the request to remit the case to the Examining Division (ED) .*** Translation of the German original ***[6] The request for remittal pursuant to A 111(1) could not be granted, for the following reasons.[6.1] This request, which had already been filed during the written proceedings (written submission of July 17, 2009) and in… [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Raphael’s Madonna of the Goldfinch before, during and after restorationThis is an appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent  by the Opposition Division (OD).The decision contains an interesting reasoning on the admissibility of the main request:[1] The main request was filed during oral proceedings (OPs). [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The opponent appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division to maintain the opposed patent in amended form.During the appeal proceedings, the opponent filed an expert’s declaration:The patent proprietor argued that the declaration of Mr G. was belated and should not be admitted into the proceedings. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This examination appeal deals with the correction of an error.Claim 1 before the Board of appeal read (in English translation):Objective lens having a housing (102; 202; 302; 402), an iris diaphragm (110; 210; 310; 410), and a plurality of lens groups (I, II, III, IV), wherein, for focusing said objective lens (100; 200; 300; 400) while minimizing a variation of an image angle, at least two lens groups (III/IV; II/III) are adapted to be moved relative to said housing (102; 202; 302; 402), one lens… [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) refusing its application.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board was identical with the claim which the ED had found to lack novelty:An asymmetric optical storage medium (10) comprising a plurality of layers, said plurality of layers including a substrate layer (20), a data layer (30) and at least one high modulus layer (40), which improves dimensional stability in said medium, said high modulus layer comprising a… [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:52 am by Greensboro Law Blog
Clyde Rollins, passed away Saturday morning, February 19 at 6:30 am. [read post]