Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 501 - 520
of 5,968
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2009, 5:01 pm
Katie G. [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:01 pm
However, decision G 6/83 [2] has acknowledged the possibility of using Swiss-type claims. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
With reference to decision G 2/92 and the Guidelines for Examination, chapter III, point 7.11.4, the ED submitted that the only way for the applicant to seek protection for the present subject-matter would be to file a divisional application. [read post]
1 May 2010, 11:00 am
Re (a): [2.2.1] In decision T 587/98, which concerns double patenting arising from a divisional application, the board concluded that A 125 was not applicable, as prohibition of conflicting claims would be a’ matter of substantive law rather than a matter of procedure (see [3.6] of the reasons). [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
T 483/90, T 613/91 and T 1/97[5.2] (a) In T 483/90 the appeal was filed by the opponent without specifying its address; with respect to the name, even if it was not completely clear, it seems that there was no deficiency. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 7:51 pm
We conclude as a matter of lawthat it was not. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
One necessary corollary of the decision to grant is that the EPO is no longer competent to deal with any further matters relating to the text of the patent (see decision T 777/97 [3]). [read post]
17 May 2010, 3:16 pm
Detergent and cleaner additive comprising a) 55 to 85% by weight of carrier material with an oil absorption capacity of at least 20 g/100 g and a particle size of less than 200 ? [read post]
1 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, the court said that "[T]he public policy exception to an arbitrator's power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow" and the Court of Appeals has promulgated "a two-prong test for determining whether an arbitration award violates public policy. [read post]
2 May 2011, 9:10 am
By Steven G. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
The legal situation in this regard has been elucidated in the decisions of the Enlarged Board (EBA) G 9/92 and G 4/93. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 11:01 am
This finding is, as pointed out by the Appellant, supported by T 1170/02 and T 956/07. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 3:28 am
The board had also not provided conclusive reasons on the basis of tangible evidence (see decision T 1014/07, reasons point 8) showing why the skilled person starting from D4 would, and not just could (see decision T 0002/83, headnote [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 1:22 pm
It doesn’t matter what or where the source. [read post]
9 Aug 2009, 11:10 pm
Finally, the Court didn't lose a drop of sweat dispensing with G's false advertising claims because of G's unclean hands: There is no question that [G's] conduct has a 'material relation' to the equitable relief that it seeks. [read post]
14 May 2010, 8:01 am
It was only a matter of time. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
The subject-matter of claim 10 is not novel and hence does not meet the requirements of A 54(1) and (2).Since the main request is not allowable, there is no need to deal with T 840/93 cited by appellant I in respect of claims 2 and 3 of this request.I respectfully disagree, as our American colleagues like to say, with the above treatment of definitions in the specification. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 6:28 pm
David G. [read post]
20 May 2019, 7:26 am
The Seinfeld finale was awful - strained, unfunny, completely misconceived - although it didn't really matter since story arcs weren't key to the show, so it was really just a by then rare bad episode. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm
Therefore, the Board has come to the conclusion that the subject-matter of claim 1 is not clear, and that the request is not patentable.[5.2] The Board does not share the opinion of the [patent proprietor] according to which claim 1 of this request should automatically be considered to be clear because it corresponds to a transformation of a product claim into a use claim on the basis of G 2/88. [read post]
