Search for: "AT&T"
Results 3201 - 3220
of 881,839
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2011, 12:01 pm
Some colleagues preparing for the EQE have questioned me about this decision, which I did not know (although it is reported here in the Case Law Book). [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 3:06 pm
In a recent post I have discussed a case where a Swiss-type claim was used outside the medical realm. [read post]
17 Nov 2012, 11:01 am
The patent proprietor filed an appeal after the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained its patent in amended form.Claim 1 of the first auxiliary request read (in English translation):Purified polypeptide comprising an amino acid sequence selected from among:(a) the sequence SEQ ID No. 2,(b) any sequence derived from SEQ ID No. 2 and capable of binding specifically to IL-l3, with the exception of the polypeptide of the following sequence:1 MARPALLGELLVLLLWTATVGQVAAATEVQPPVTNLSVSV 41… [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request read:A pharmaceutical composition in the form of a tablet, wherein said composition comprises, based on weight: (a) from 20 to 70% irbesartan or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, (b) from 1 to 70% diluent, (c) from 2 to 20% binder, (d) from 1 to 10% disintegrant, (e) from 0.1% to 5% antiadherent, (f) from 0.2 to 5% lubricant, (g) from 0.2 to 6% surfactant, wherein the surfactant is a poloxamer, wherein the tablet formed from said composition has a dissolution… [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the refusal of an application by the Examining Division (ED). [read post]
25 Nov 2016, 7:32 am
Sometimes, when I read a decision, I feel the atmosphere of the oral proceedings. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
When trying to establish the existence of an inventive step, attorneys sometimes argue that the skilled person would not have done this or that because there was a well-known path he would rather have chosen when trying to solve the problem under consideration. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 3:01 pm
Readers interested in major and “surprising” decisions only should not read on. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
The present appeal was filed after the Examining Division (ED) had refused an application because its subject-matter did not comply with the requirements of A 52(4), A 84, A 123(2), A 56 or A 56.In two communications dated December 21, 2004 and April 3, 2006, the ED had held that independent claims 1 and 17 did not comply with A 84 and A 123(2). [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
Both the opponent and the patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.The Board decided to maintain the patent as amended during the appeal proceedings and then dealt with cost-related requests under A 104 and – which is less common – Article 16 RPBA.*** Translation of the French original ***Concerning the apportionment of costs ordered by the OD[18] Pursuant to A 104(1) each party shall bear the costs it… [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 3:07 pm
This decision contains an interesting paragraph dealing with a problem that might interest drafters of patent applications concerning mechanical devices. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
In the present case the Opposition Division (OD) had revoked the opposed patent for lack of novelty over some A 54(3) prior art. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision deals with the refusal of an application by the Examining Division (ED).Claim 1 before the Board read (my translation from the German) :Device for therapeutically influencing at least parts of a living being by means of an irradiation device for irradiating [the living being] with electromagnetic waves, consisting ina high frequency oscillator stage for generating a high frequency wave train, wherein the high frequency oscillator stage generates a frequency that can be tuned in… [read post]
13 May 2012, 5:01 pm
The criteria for assessing lack of novelty are quite restrictive under the EPC as interpreted by the case law – which is something even Examining Divisions (ED) sometimes forget.Claim 1 before the Board read:An apparatus for controlling supercharging pressure in an internal combustion engine, wherein the engine includes: an exhaust passage (20); a turbine (32) located in the exhaust passage (20), the turbine (32) having variable position vanes (36) which open and close to change the flow rate… [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
** Translation from the German **[1] When issuing the summons for oral proceedings (OPs) on February 10, 2010, the Board has presented its provisional opinion in the present case and given a time limit of two months for filing statements. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
The opponents filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject the opposition.In their written statement setting out the grounds of appeal, the opponents only invoked lack of inventive step under A 100(a). [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Headnote 2 of G 1/93 reads:A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to be considered as subject-matter which extends… [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal of the opponent after the patent had been maintained in amended form by the Opposition Division (OD).In what follows, the Board discusses the question of whether the ground of insufficiency of disclosure was already in the proceedings.*** Translation of the German original ***[2.1] In the present case the objection of the opponent regarding insufficient diclosure was discussed by both parties several times during the proceedings before the OD (see the minutes of the oral… [read post]
21 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the Examining Division (ED) to refuse its application. [read post]
23 Apr 2011, 11:01 am
The present decision deals with the refusal of a patent application. [read post]
