Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 361 - 380
of 5,921
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Apr 2019, 7:28 am
The publication of priority application EP 1 834 951 A (D1) was among the documents cited during opposition proceedings.The opposition division came to inter alia the following conclusions on the then pending main request:- The claimed subject-matter partially enjoyed the priority date of 10 March 2006 from D1.- D1 was thus not a conflicting application and could not be used against the novelty of the claimed subject-matter.- The claimed subject-matter was novel and… [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
Hence, the effect relating to improving pet activity is not a new technical effect in the sense of G 2/88 and cannot confer novelty on the subject-matter of granted claim 1 over the disclosure of D4, D6 and D7. [2.8] The respondent maintained that an improvement in the health of a pet did not mean that the activity of the pet was increased. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the appeal could have been avoided if the applicant had attended the OPs before the first instance. [3.10] G 4/92 was cited by the appellant. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
I can’t believe that the Board got it right.I may be wrong but I think that if the reasoning of the Board were correct, then it would NOT be possible, for instance, to accept an amendment “from a claim to a physical entity per se ... to a claim to a physical activity involving the use of such physical entity” (to use the language of G 2/88 [5]). [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am
At no point in the written procedure did the appellant provide a single argument why the subject-matter of claim 1 of the present request is considered to involve an inventive step. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am
At no point in the written procedure did the appellant provide a single argument why the subject-matter of claim 1 of the present request is considered to involve an inventive step. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 6:05 am
All five questions referred to the Enlarged Board can be found in decision T 557/13.2. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Even though by itself not decisive (“whether or not a method is excluded from patentability under A 53(c) cannot depend on the person carrying it out” G 1/07 [3.4.1] see also G 1/04 discussed therein), this criterion gives a further indication that the claimed method might fall under the exclusion clause. [read post]
27 Nov 2022, 8:32 am
In T 1989/18, the Board of Appeal considered Article 69 EPC irrelevant to the matter of description amendments, given that it is not concerned with the definition of the subject-matter for which protection is sought, but instead just deals with how the claims should be interpreted (IPKat). [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
This principle was laid down in decision T 208/84 [16], re-affirmed in decision T 154/04 [8(G)] and recently confirmed in opinion G 3/08 [10.7.1, 10.13.2 (citing T 154/04), and 12.2.2]). [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 10:33 am
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Unpublished Opinion in the following matter: DA 10-0122 and DA 10-0123, 2010 MT 184N, T.G.C. and M.C., Petitioners and Appellees, v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 2:24 pm
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Unpublished Opinion in the following matter: DA 09-0324, 2009 MT 429N, T.A.S. and G.S., on behalf of T.S. and N.S., Petitioners and Appellees, v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, in decision G 1/95 [5.3] the EBA has declared that when opinion G 10/91 used the term “fresh ground for opposition” it intended to refer to a ground for opposition “which was neither raised and substantiated in the notice of opposition, nor introduced into the proceedings by the OD in application of A 114(1) and in accordance with the principles set out in G 10/91 [16]”.NB: Why do the Boards so often cite G… [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 6:58 am
Matters are further complicated by the fact that document D1 is written in Japanese and no (partial) translation is on file. [read post]
24 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
This is in line with the difference made in the case law between an “implicit” and an “inherent” disclosure as laid down in the decision G 2/88. [19] Thus, the board considers the claimed subject-matter to fulfil the requirements of A 54. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 1:36 am
Also, the legal grounds of Decision T 0116/18 of 28 July 2023 constitute an enlightening roadmap to navigate the certainly abstract waters of G 0002/21. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 4:01 pm
T 488/94, T 169/96 and T 345/98). [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:17 pm
Even when combining the teaching of D14 with the package of D9 the skilled person would not arrive at the claimed subject-matter.First auxiliary requestInventive step should be recognised for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request. [read post]
28 May 2020, 3:03 am
Last week when SEC Chairman Jay Clayton spoke before the SEC Investor Advisory Committee meeting, he concluded his remarks by noting his views on disclosure of ESG matters – saying that lumping “E”, “S” and “G” disclosure matters together reduces the usefulness of the disclosures. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
The OD’s point of view with respect to the claimed dosage regimen is in line with the decision of the EBA G 2/08. [read post]
