Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 461 - 480
of 20,024
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2010, 12:00 pm
In this opinion it was held inter alia that the subject-matter of claim 1 did not involve an inventive step […]. b) In its reply dated 18.09.2008 the appellant filed amended application documents. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 2:45 pm
Backdoor protection of TM-excluded matter: do we want to understand UC as a matter of not wanting to go beyond TM’s internal limitations, or is it just that TM stops and some other regime starts? [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 11:08 am
(Kikkerland Design Retro alarm clock / handout photo) An interesting opinion, in In the matter of B & G (Eng. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
T 139/87; T 2140/09) the case ought therefore to have been rectified by the department of first instance pursuant to A 109(1). [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
However, due to the application of the restriction means within a gastric band the use of a gas for inflation is excluded as a matter of fact. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
Document E1 reveals all the features of claim 1 in accordance with the main request except for claim item (b)(i). [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 4:43 pm
The disclaimer thus removes subject-matter which does not anticipate the subject-matter of the present claims in the absence of the disclaimer. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 2:34 pm
Ed describes as "absurd" my premise "that it matters why an employer is providing health insurance": If the employer is doing so and would prefer to continue doing so, that's the end of the matter. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 11:46 am
UK has a closed list of subject matter; you can’t protect something that isn’t on the list. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:31 am
" Logically, I can't make patentable subject matter fit, at all. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 9:59 am
The issue wasn’t the planning of the scheme, but its execution; also, planning was within the defendants’ knowledge, and for such matters Rule 9(b) may be relaxed.Meggitt alleged that Nie and Xiamen Niell falsely advertised products through catalogues and data sheets at two trade shows. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
(b) No reference is made in D1 to the mask subtraction step. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 2:14 am
Although it can be a demanding intellectual exercise, the decisions reached in cases T 665/00, T 135/01, T 571/10 and T 1222/11 all show that it can be carried out without any need for additional tests or steps.6.7 From this analysis it follows that the assessment of entitlement to partial priority right does not show that any additional requirements are needed. [read post]
17 Jun 2021, 12:29 pm
In short order, on October 23, 1996, Judge Weinstein issued a short, published opinion, in which he ducked the pending Rule 702 motions, and he granted partial summary judgment on the claims of systemic disease.[10] Only the lawyers involved in the matters would have known that there was no pending motion for summary judgment! [read post]
8 May 2023, 4:01 am
The relatively small number of reported § 1118 cases in which courts have departed from the 9% statutory rate include Giaimo v Vitale (4%), Matter of Whalen (4%), Matter of Bambu Sales, Inc. (5.75%), and Matter of Fleischer (12%) — none of which explained how the court arrived at the chosen rate. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
” [11] Thus, prima facie and when regarded separately, the meaning of both claims 13 and 14 is clear, i.e. they both relate to the same subject-matter. [12] However, as noted in point [2] above, the meaning of a claims is determined in the context of the whole application, i.e. also in context with other claims. [12.1] When claim 13 is regarded in context with claim 14 an uncertainty about the meaning of claim 13 arises in because claim 14 is dependent on claim 13, yet covers the same… [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 1:10 am
Accordingly, the appellant is treated as relying on its written case.Main Request - Claims 1 to 5Disclosure of the invention - Article 100(b) and Article 83 EPC2. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 2:18 am
The subject-matter of the claim had no basis in document B29. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 6:01 pm
In this respect, the present decision is in line with decision T 1819/07 [3.5]. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 6:53 am
"[Plaintiff] argues that the jury deliberations took only 45 minutes, and '[t]hese cursory 'deliberations' yielded a verdict counter to the great weight of the evidence.' However, '[b]rief jury deliberation is not, in itself, sufficient basis to support a new trial motion. [read post]
