Search for: "MATTER OF T A-K J A-K"
Results 21 - 40
of 1,034
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
" K&L Gates opened its Singapore office with the addition of DLA Piper partner Kevin J. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
According to those features, the full strand and the empty strand are arranged in a common horizontal plane and are arranged behind one another in the longitudinal direction of the storage device.Moreover, the storage device according to claim 1 differs from the one of D2 by a second group of distinguishing features (hereinafter: “second group of features”), according to which – according to feature [i] - to each layer of the full strand is allocated a corresponding layer of the… [read post]
23 May 2010, 3:01 pm
In particular, the group of features concerning activation/deactivation and operation mode of the cells ([h], [j] and [k]) could be regarded separately from that pertaining to TOA measurement ([l] and [m]). [read post]
26 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the fact that the Board has come to a different conclusion from the department of first instance does not by itself mean that the latter committed a substantial procedural violation (see for example decisions T 87/88; T 538/89, T 182/92) but is rather a matter of judgment, which does not amount to a procedural violation (see for example decision T 182/92 [7] and Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 7th edition 2013,… [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
T 220/83 [4] and T 177/97 [1]; affirmed by numerous decisions, and in particular recently by T 573/09 [1.1]).Whether the requirements of A 108, third sentence, in conjunction with R 99(2) are met has to be decided on the basis of the statement of grounds of appeal and of the reasons given in the contested decision (see, e.g., J 22/86 [2]; T 162/97 [1.1.2]).Exceptionally, it has been acknowledged that “the requirement for admissibility [laid down in… [read post]
10 Jul 2010, 11:02 am
In other words, the reimbursement of a fee requires there to be special provision (see for example decision J 33/86). [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
J 37/89 [3.5]). [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 5:56 am
Most public companies will need to provide new disclosures about corporate governance, director qualifications and compensation matters in proxy statements for their 2010 annual meetings. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
This is in line with decisions T 842/90 and J 20/00 where it was considered possible that the payment of an additional fee amounting to [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, this provision has undergone some change when the EPC 2000 entered into force. [read post]
4 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
In later decisions J 24/96 [2] and T 1382/08 [1.1], however, the question is discussed in detail and answered by stating that the allocation pursuant to A 21(3)(c) unambiguously provides that the LBA is competent. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
The opponent also cited inter alia decisions T 932/93 and T 358/08, which confirmed that a request according to R 99(1)(c) could be implicit, the extent of the appeal being a matter for the grounds of appeal, and J 25/92, wherein it was considered that if a request was uncertain, the EPO should clarify the situation by asking the requester. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
A 134(8) requires that the legal practitioner be qualified in a Contracting State, that he have his place of business in that State, and that he be entitled in that State to act as a professional representative in patent matters. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
The appellant leaves it to the Board to clarify the contradictions in the first paragraph, to define the prior art mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 and to consider which of the two features that have been incorporated into the characterising part, isolated or together, the appellant believes to make the claims novel or patentable.[10] During the written proceedings and partly also during the oral proceedings, the appellant has cited the following decisions in order to support its submissions on the… [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Upon consulting documents J and K, it becomes clear that the former relates to the rhuMoAb HER2 phase II clinical trial wher [read post]
19 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
How did the Legal Board decide this matter? [read post]
19 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 19/87 [5]; T 668/89 [3]; T 417/00 [2.3] T 1829/10 [2.4]). [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
J 15/04 [13]). [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:02 pm
It has been decided that an Examining Division (ED) does not commit a substantial procedural violation when it fails to follow the Guidelines, unless it also violates a rule or principle of procedure governed by the EPC or one of the implementing regulations (T 42/84 [9]; T 647/93 [4.1]): the failure of a department of the EPO to follow a procedure set out in the Guidelines does not qualify as a substantial procedural violation as the Guidelines are not legally binding (J… [read post]
