Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 401 - 420
of 20,022
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Oct 2014, 9:53 am
In Matter of R.B v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
This applies all the more if the unclear feature is essential with respect to the invention in the sense that it is designed for delimiting the subject-matter claimed from the prior art, thereby giving rise to uncertainty as to whether or not the subject-matter claimed is anticipated. [read post]
6 May 2012, 5:01 pm
They relied in this respect on decision T 692/09. [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 7:08 am
By: Scott B. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
The subject-matter of claim 1 is seen as consistent only in particular situations. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
As the Druckexemplar did in fact include page 6, and this was the legally binding text, the objections raised by the respondent-opponent under A 100(b) and A 123(3), based solely on the missing page 6, the appellant proprietor’s requests for correction under R 140 or amendment, as well as the ensuing discussion during the OPs before the Board concerning A 123(3)) and the Board’s finding above were from a substantive point of view legally unfounded (not having considered the… [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This situation characterises an insufficient disclosure of the invention.[1.12] As a consequence, the subject-matter of the main request is not disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (A 83).Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here.NB: This decision was first reported by Le blog du droit européen des brevets (here). [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 2:32 pm
The A&B associates in Atlanta are outraged. [read post]
13 Mar 2007, 2:32 pm
The A&B associates in Atlanta are outraged. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 11:01 am
(my emphasis) There was agreement on the fact that the subject-matter of this claim was not explicitly disclosed in the application as filed, but the applicant pointed out that the disclosure was implicit.The Board won’t have it:[7] The appellant does not contest the absence of an explicit disclosure of the subject-matter of claim 1 […] in the application as filed, but its argumentation relies on an implicit disclosure of this subject-matter which, in… [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, the ground of opposition under A 100(b) prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted. [read post]
29 Nov 2019, 1:52 pm
To survive a motion to dismiss under CIT Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. [read post]
13 Dec 2015, 1:04 pm
Inside counsel work extremely hard on matters that are vital to the success of their companies. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
European patent No. 1 773 302, filed on 16 February 2005 and claiming the priority date of 23 July 2004 from US application 10/898061 (D1), was opposed on the ground that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and was insufficiently disclosed (Article 100(b) EPC).The following documents were among those cited during the first-instance proceedings:D1: US2005/0152971 (application No. 10/898061), filed on 23 July 2004, priority application of the… [read post]
11 Jan 2010, 8:10 pm
Takeaway: The Examiner is allowed to take you final on the first OA after the RCE if he doesn't find your arguments persuasive AND as long as one of two other conditions is met: a) you didn't make any claim amendments with the RCE; or b) you made claim amendments, but didn't present them in an After-Final response.Digging deeper: 706.07(b) Final Rejection, When Proper on First ActionThe claims of an application for which a request for… [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 1:12 pm
I don't need a constitutional right. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
In such a situation the introduction of this ground for opposition can result from the fact that the reasons for the decision contain substantiated statements regarding that matter.[2.4] In point 3.3 of its decision the OD refers, in an unambiguous and sufficient way, to the legal and factual framework of the ground for opposition according to which the skilled person can “can carry out” (thereby implicitly mentioning [the German version of] A 100(b)) a waterstop device… [read post]
23 Feb 2018, 8:30 am
And, because the trial court didn’t conduct an adjudication trial, the court couldn’t determine whether jurisdiction would be appropriate.The matter was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court which was denied. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
” In part B of the example of D1 paraformaldehyde was used. [read post]
