Search for: "T. R. T."
Results 381 - 400
of 304,486
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
T 666/90, T 552/97 and T 1439/05), the fact that the final requests were not established contravenes the provisions of Article 113(2) EPC and is considered a substantial procedural violation. [3] The substantial procedural violation requires that the decision under appeal be set aside and justifies the reimbursement of the appeal fee according to R 67 EPC 1973 (applicable here, see J 10/07 [7]). [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 6:18 am
You don't want to ride against traffic. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
The present board holds that the principles set out in T 1212/97 (affirmed by T 12/01 [20]; T 667/01 [2]) apply to the present case. [5.5] In T 1212/97 [3] the Board did not consider evidence from the lecturer alone as being satisfactory evidence as to what was made available to the public at the lecture. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
This amendment is considered by the [patent proprietor] to represent a mere correction under R 139 of the wording of claim 1 as granted. [4] R 139 (former R 88 EPC 1973) provides in its second sentence that a correction of errors in documents filed with the EPO that concerns the description, claims or drawings can only be allowed if the correction is obvious in the sense that it is immediately evident that nothing else would have been intended than what is offered as… [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
These rules are enacted pursuant to the EPC (see A 23(4) and R 12(3)) and are binding on the BoA (Article 23 RPBA). [5] The basic principle relating to the conduct of appeal proceedings is to be found in Article 12(1) RPBA, which states that: “(1) Appeal proceedings shall be based on (a) the notice of appeal and statement of grounds of appeal, (b) any written reply of any other party and (c) any communication sent by the BoA and any answer thereto filed pursuant to directions of the… [read post]
8 May 2011, 3:01 pm
[…][9.1] The Board notes that there are no doubts that the response of the applicant dated April 25, 2007 is serious.However, the appellant is wrong when arguing, based on decision T 802/97, that this alone would have required a further communication. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 1:08 pm
<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/GenderAndTheLawBlog/~4/t-Z4Q0cIf9o" height="1" width="1" alt=""/> [read post]
21 Aug 2017, 11:20 pm
In the case of any dispute as to the extent of the relevant common general knowledge this, like any other fact in contention, has to be proved, for instance by documentary or oral evidence (T 939/92, OJ 1996, 309, see also T 766/91, T 1242/04, OJ 2007, 421; T 537/90, T 329/04 and T 811/06). [read post]
8 Feb 2007, 10:46 am
OKAY, I COULDN'T RESIST THE AIRPLANE REFERENCE BELOW, but I have to point out a more positive item from the same story: The Speaker also answered an inquiry from Rep. [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:16 am
(L.R.) and T. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 4:40 am
Nach Feststellungen der Staatsanwaltschaft haben die Männer im August den „Türstehern“ eines Clubs gedroht. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 8:04 am
Earlier this week T&R Enterprise USA Inc. expanded a recall of poultry and meat egg roll products over concerns the products were produced under unsanitary conditions. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 8:29 am
Sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83 EPC 1973)2.1 In parallel case T 1155/12, objections similar to those raised in the present case, regarding sufficiency of disclosure under Art. 83 EPC 1973, were raised. [read post]
2 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
The ED provided a justification that is ... surprising, to say the least (in France we would say “ça vaut son pesant de cacahuètes”) (my English translation):“EPO form 2701 dated July 27, 2011, and the corresponding decision on interlocutory revision dated August 3, 2011, do not reflect the actual intention of the ED, according to which interlocutory revision cannot be granted.Pursuant to R 140 only obvious mistakes can be corrected in decisions of the EPO. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 11:14 am
Steven T. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
It is stipulated in R 28(1): “If an invention involves the use of or concerns biological material which is not available to the public and which cannot be described in the European patent application in such a manner as to enable the invention [...]. [read post]
4 Dec 2010, 2:19 pm
r Türkiye hariç dünyan? [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
A process for producing florfenicol ([R-(R*, S*)]-2,2,-dichloro-N-[1-(fluoromethyl)-2-hydroxy-2-[4-ethylsulfonyl) phenyl]ethyl]acetamide), which comprises: (a) preparing a compound of formula (I): wherein R is CH3S02; and R” is aryl, halo aryl, benzyl, substituted benzyl, C1 to C6 alkyl, C3 to C7 cycloalkyl, and haloalkyl, and the configuration of the oxazoline ring is 4R trans by contacting a compound of formula II: wherein R is as described above,… [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
The [opponent] referred to decisions T 755/96, T 1105/98, T 401/02 and T 153/85 in order to support his plea.The [opponent] also referred to the complexity of the amendments, in particular of the amended main request and the second auxiliary request. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
However, the possibility of demanding a translation as foreseen by R 3(3), but only at a relatively late stage, - e.g. due to an issue which arises only in OPs - clearly contradicts with the need for the parties to have their case completely prepared for the OPs so that the case may be ready for a decision (R 116 (1) in combination with R 111(1)). [read post]
