Search for: "MATTER OF T B" Results 361 - 380 of 20,022
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The board thereby follows the well-established case law on the interpretation of R 86(4) EPC 1973 see, e.g., T 708/00 [17], T 274/03 [5,6] and T 141/04 [5], it being noted that R 86(4) EPC 1973 has the same wording as R 137(4) (as in force at the date the ED took its decision), which, as from 1 April 2010, is included in R 137(5). [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 8:29 am by Sander van Rijnswou
In this respect, a discrepancy between this embodiment and the claimed subject-matter appears in the terminology used. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
The decision was based on the request filed on October 31.The Board of appeal found that the applicant’s right to be heard had been violated:Fundamental deficiencies[3] The appellant contests the decision of the ED essentially for both procedural and substantive matters. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 11:08 pm by Roel van Woudenberg
(b) The first auxiliary request contained an additional independent claim which contravened Rule 80 EPC. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:24 am by Jim Pravel
See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 4:32 pm by INFORRM
It’s not completely clear, but it appears that when the original judge dealing with the case refused Mr Green’s applications for permission to report, she must have treated him as not ‘duly accredited’ – we know this because Sir James Munby says that if Mr Green didn’t like her decision about his status he should have appealed it (which he hadn’t). [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 2:29 pm by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
The older the alleged other acts the worse the case for admission of MRE 404(b) matter in my view. [read post]
27 Jul 2014, 2:29 pm by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
The older the alleged other acts the worse the case for admission of MRE 404(b) matter in my view. [read post]
21 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
What is “only by A or by B” supposed to mean? [read post]
15 May 2017, 2:32 am by Romano Beitsma
The Examining Division decided that the subject-matter of claims 1 and 9 of the main request contained added subject-matter. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 12:00 pm
" "[T]he view must still provide substantial, additional details to complete the image of the flag of Canada. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
An isolated variant hepatitis B surface antigen comprising an amino acid sequence wherein mutations from hepatitis B wild type ayw2 strain appear as follows: at position 103 isoleucine is present instead of methionine, at position 118 lysine is present instead of threonine, at position 120 glutamine is present instead of proline, at position 170 serine is present instead of leucine, and at position 213 serine is present instead of leucine. [read post]
27 Aug 2017, 7:47 pm
It doesn't matter if you have used a CPAP for sleep apnea for years. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 2:05 am by Nico Cordes
"b) "As the last amendments do not change the scope of the claimed subject-matter (when compared to the previous examined set of claims), the objections underlying the present decision were already known to the applicant. [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 2:05 am by Nico Cordes
"b) "As the last amendments do not change the scope of the claimed subject-matter (when compared to the previous examined set of claims), the objections underlying the present decision were already known to the applicant. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 6:26 am by Kevin Wickliffe
” In addition,”[i]t does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 9:45 am by Alex Craigie
  No amount of careful teaching with brilliant demonstrative exhibits can make a person with a high school education or less, who has never worked in the automotive industry and, frankly, doesn’t care much about cars at all, understand a component, and comprehend why a company chose design A over design B. [read post]
30 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm by oliver randl
A source of solace for the appellant’s attorneyThe decision on this appeal against the revocation of the opposed patent by the Opposition Division contains two interesting passages.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:A disposable absorbent article in the form of a diaper having an absorbent structure comprising an absorbent core (3) which is coated with absorbent sheets (3A, 3B) to thereby form the absorbent structure and disposed between a liquid pervious sheet (1) and a… [read post]