Search for: "Downloader 54"
Results 481 - 500
of 717
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
Here is another textbook example of a disclaimer that does not fulfil the requirements established in G 1/03.The patent proprietor filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to revoke the opposed patent.The Board found the (main) request I to lack novelty over document D1 (prior art under A 54(3)(4)), and auxiliary requests II and III not to comply with A 123(2). [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
Therefore, since the claimed range of time of from 5 to 30 minutes is not linked to any surprising technical effect, it must be considered as an arbitrary limitation for which no inventive step can be acknowledged.As a result, claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 is not allowable since its subject-matter lacks an inventive step pursuant to A 56.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
27 Aug 2011, 11:01 am
The case was remitted to the ED for further prosecution.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 10:41 am
A good book to read on this subject can be downloaded from the Canadian Government’s website here. [read post]
13 Aug 2011, 11:01 am
However, A 54(2) does not limit the state of the art to written disclosure in specific documents; rather it defines it as including all other ways (“in any other way”) by which technical subject-matter can be made available to the public. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 4:55 am
” Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 54-55. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 12:48 pm
Note: I ended up downloading the Portishead album (“Dummy”). [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
Not providing a procedure to enforce what is laid down in A 54(4) EPC 1973 is in contradiction to the legislator’s intention because it would make A 54(4) EPC 1973 redundant. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
This decision deals with an appeal following the refusal of an application by the Examining Division, based on A 54 and A 52(4).Claims 1, 24, 27, and 33 before the Board read :1. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 7:13 am
id=151785964&s=143441 Direct download: CIICU_Best_of_3.mp3 [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
In other words, I find it untoward to introduce a dose of inventive step into criteria for novelty assessment in order to mask undesirable side effects of the A 54(3) novelty-only regime.Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.The file wrapper can be found here.NB: There was a post on T 230/07 on this blog, plus some interesting comments left by readers. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
However, an arbitrary selection from a group of equally suitable candidates cannot be viewed as involving an inventive step.[5.3] Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 3 of the main request and claim 1 of the auxiliary request represents an obvious solution to the problem posed and does not involve an inventive step.Since a decision can only be taken on a request as a whole, none of the further claims need be examined.Consequently, the [patent proprietor’s] main and auxiliary requests are… [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 2:25 am
For judgment, please download: [2011] UKSC 34 For the Court’s press summary, please download: Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 10:05 pm
Legal research apps are popular, and the "most-often mentioned product names for downloaded legal-specific smartphone apps are Fastcase (25%), Westlaw (11%) and Lexis (9%). [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 6:34 am
She’s authored a comprehensive report (pdf here, and well worth downloading and reading in its entirety) that I’ll reference frequently. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Either way, trouble ahead.One more reason to avoid disclaimers whenever you can.To download the whole decision (in German), click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 9:07 am
Gerald Woods, 54, of Portland, was driving a southbound 2010 Freightliner truck and empty semi-trailer. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
This qualifies as a violation of the right to be heard.The Board then set aside the decision and remitted the case for further prosecution.To download the whole decision (in French), click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 3:43 pm
You can download it in its entirety here. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
The patent was revoked.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
