Search for: "D. K."
Results 3381 - 3400
of 9,723
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2021, 5:54 am
Schedule D lists the capital gains and losses from the sale of assets. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 11:31 am
Jeffery K. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 8:11 pm
The answer is: Yes, I’d be happy to explain my use of #gas and #bikeride on Twitter and Facebook. [read post]
12 May 2008, 11:37 am
¿Dónde está la frontera entre el derecho a la información y el derecho a la privacidad? [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 12:53 pm
Dunkin and Allison K. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
This implies that what is not defined by the Implementing Regulations does not qualify as a procedural defect in the sense of A 112a(2)(d). [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Vigand in the French periodical Propriété Intellectuelle, Décembre 2010, p. 17, in an article dedicated to T 1233/05 (my translation of the French original): … When the prior art is prior art that is relevant for novelty only (A 54(3) EPC), it is absolutely indispensable to have demanding and precise standards for applying the criterion of novelty. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:02 pm
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 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
Expressions of this kind have no limiting effect on the scope of a claim; that is to say, the feature following any such expression is to be regarded as entirely optional.The present decision – which deals with an appeal filed by a patent proprietor against the decision of the Opposition Division to maintain the patent in amended form – points out that this is not always true.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read (in English translation – the amendments with respect to… [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 11:45 am
A Georgia resident; or a non-resident who is: (a) related by lineal consanguinity to the ward; (b) a legally adopted child or adoptive parent of the ward; (c) a spouse, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, or nephew of the ward, or someone elated by lineal consanguinity to any such person; or (d) the spouse of a person otherwise qualified above; and 3. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 4:01 pm
The Guidelines for examination in the EPO (D-V 3.3) contain the statement that “if information is made available by means of a written description and use or by means of a written and oral description, but only the use or the oral description is made available before the relevant date, then in accordance with C-IV, 6.1, the subsequently published written description may be deemed to give a true account of that oral description or use, unless the proprietor of the patent can give good… [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm
This petition was filed by the proprietor of the opposed patent after Board 3.3.02 had dismissed its appeal against the revocation of the patent.The petition contained a not so common (but, in my opinion, rather desperate) argument regarding the technical competence of the members of the Board:[1] A petition for review pursuant to A 112a(4) shall be filed in a reasoned statement setting out the grounds within a time limit of two months after the notification of the contested decision if the petition… [read post]
12 Mar 2011, 11:01 am
Claim 1 of the patent as granted read:A process for making a viscous reaction product and making this into a solid component, comprising the steps of: a) reacting at least two compounds with one another to form a first active material to form a viscous mixed product which has a viscosity of at least 500cps or even at least 1000cps at 20°C, and mixing this with a second active material that is a perfume mix; b) mixing the product of step a) with a liquid carrier material, whereby step b) is… [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 11:01 am
The fact that the expression “obtained”, which had been used initially, has been transformed to “obtainable” (susceptible d’être obtenu) does not at all modify the definition of the product at which the claim is directed insofar as the process referred to has clearly (de toute evidence) remained the same. [read post]
16 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
As we have seen in the preceding post, Claim 1 of the main request read: A stabilized, concentrated, acidic antimicrobial composition characterized by forming a substantially clear diluted aqueous treatment composition upon dilution, said stable, concentrated, acidic antimicrobial composition comprising: (a) from 5% to 95%, by weight of said concentrated composition, of an organic acid; (b) from 1% to 80%, by weight of said concentrated composition, of a surfactant; (c) a stabilizing agent;… [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
It follows that there is no scope for an argument that the spirit of A 122 should be invoked: specific alternatives to restoration of rights are provided.[6] It is, of course, true, as Mathély has pointed out (“Le droit européen des brevets d’invention” Librairie du Journal des Notaires et des Avocats, Paris 1978, p. 244), that the sanction of A 77(5) EPC is grave, because it is imposed on the applicant for a default for which he is not responsible, but… [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 11:01 am
A similar conclusion was reached in decision T 603/89 [2.1(c)/(d), 2.6] in connection with a kind of template that displayed numbers on a card to represent notes on a keyboard instrument. [read post]
7 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
No mention is ever made in the further course of the reasons of that decision of any narrow or restrictive view which would have to be taken because the said prohibition was an exception to patentability and in the present case the Enlarged Board will proceed in the same way. [3.1]I am not unhappy to see the Enlarged Board put aside this principle, although by doing so the EBA deprives me of a beloved trait d’esprit. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 11:01 am
The Board found claim 1 to lack novelty:[2.1] The last sentence of paragraph D on page 50 of document D6 reads as follows: “Even in the case of a rotation involving Roundup ready soybeans, it should be considered that a) no-till - cultivation which is used on 35% of the soybean acreage, reduces dramatically the occurrence of the volunteers and b) control of Roundup Ready corn volunteers will remain possible with an application of grass-killer herbicides such as fluazifop-p, clethodim,… [read post]
30 Aug 2009, 10:54 am
İsterdik ki savaşsız bir zaman diliminde barışı değil barışık kalmayı konuşalım. [read post]
