Search for: "MATTER OF R T"
Results 381 - 400
of 53,762
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2008, 2:13 pm
ABC News has picked up on a matter reported by a Denver local news station last week involving a Colorado federal judge. [read post]
19 Mar 2024, 1:46 am
What mattered was the wording of the claims. [read post]
8 Aug 2014, 4:11 am
"R&R Tree Service grew from there to a 30 employee company with trucks, equipment, and an office.At some point in time the company switched from a private workers' compensation carrier to SAIF Corporation, Oregon's state fund.The company had a program by which volunteers would come out and collect the wood from trees that R&R had cut down to give to the needy to use as firewood.As in many things in life, trying to do good just results in… [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 1:28 am
The Board of Appeal thus concluded that the addition of the disclaimer did change the subject-matter of the claim (r. 15) and added matter in view of the original application (Article 76(1) EPC). [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, A 84 (EPC 1973) together with R 29 (EPC 1973) requires a claim to give all the essential features that are necessary for defining the invention.This requirements has also been affirmed in decision G 1/07 [4.2.2; 3.3.1 – should read 4.3.1]. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 9:56 am
In John R. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
It would, however, also have been open to the OD to continue the proceedings of its own motion under R 60(2) EPC 1973 (now R 84(2)). [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 8:44 am
T. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 7:02 am
R. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
This is something which relates to “the extent to which [the decision] is to be amended”, and which is therefore a matter for the statement of grounds of appeal under R 99(2). [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 6:21 pm
In the present case, the ED's decision is totally silent on these issues, so that the rejection under A 56 is not reasoned, contrary to the requirements of R 111(2). [4]For the further prosecution of the application attention should be paid to G 1/03 [2.5] which stipulates that "if a claim comprises non-working embodiments, this may have different consequences, depending on the circumstances. [...] [read post]
30 May 2013, 5:01 pm
The four-month time limit laid down in the third sentence of A 108 concerns the filing of a statement of grounds of appeal, which is an entirely different matter. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
In the present case, the absence of explanation, both of the evidence itself and of its late production, makes matters worse. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 2:14 am
Listed for two days from Monday 9 December 2013 is the appeal of R (T & Anor) v SSHD & Anor. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
The letter ends with the assertion that “not permitting any further written submissions by the applicant” constituted a “procedural violation”. [2.2] In its communication dated 10 September 2010, the ED argued that the amendments of the ED were “a direct and unavoidable consequence of what has been ordered by the BoA (decision T 480/06, chapter 8)” […]. [2.3] The appealed decision (section 7) argues that: “the description ... contains… [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, the novelty of the claimed subject-matter has to be examined for each request. [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The essence of the objection was that the subject-matter of those claims was not “a plurality of interrelated products”, nor did it correspond to “alternative solutions to a particular problem”. [read post]
23 Jul 2008, 4:35 pm
It may not matter what or how many carrots you dangle in front of your employee. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:20 pm
Don't miss this issue. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 7:19 am
Obama, so don’t worry about it. [read post]
