Search for: ". OD" Results 541 - 560 of 1,526
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In its decision, the OD found the deletion of only one of the features to be an inadmissible broadening of the claims. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
If the Board remitted the case back to the Opposition Division (OD) and if there was an appeal against the subsequent decision of the OD, it is doubtful whether the final decision could be taken before the expiration of the patent.[5.6] For these reasons, the Board has decided to decide on the inventive step of auxiliary request 3.To download the whole decision (in German), click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
3 Jul 2010, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
In the present case the Opposition Division (OD) had maintained the opposed patent in amended form. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
It is identical to the main request underlying the decision of the opposition division (OD) […].[2.1] According to Article 13(1) RPBA […] any amendment to a party’s case after it has filed its grounds of appeal or reply may be admitted and considered at the board’s discretion. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 7:12 am
A favorite chant was "shame, shame, shame, shame," which Soave calls "an ode to the Faith Militant's treatment of Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones. [read post]
5 May 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This is a decision on an appeal filed by the opponent against the maintenance of the opposed patent in amended form.Claim 1 of the request found allowable by the Opposition Division (OD) read:1. [read post]
15 Dec 2021, 10:59 am by Christopher J. Willis
The lawsuit challenged the bank’s practice of charging OD fees on “Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions” (APPSN Transactions). [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
The OD decided that the subsequent withdrawal of representation by the professional representative meant that the opposition was deemed inadmissible. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 3:06 pm by Armand Grinstajn
Claims 1 to 6 were identical to the claims allowed by the OD. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Thus the OD would have acted ultra vires if it had corrected the grant decision. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
On the contrary, according to the petitioner’s own submissions, all the questions relating to the new ground of opposition raised by the OD, i.e. whether the OD should have heard the petitioner on the prima facie relevance of the objection before admitting it into the proceedings, whether the OD exercised its discretion correctly and whether the objections raised against the allowability of the amendment in question were well-founded, were discussed extensively in… [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In the present case, the patent proprietor and three of the four opponents filed appeals against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.The decision is somewhat lengthy; if you are happy with a summary, here is a translation of the headnotes provided by the Board:1. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm by oliver
The [opponents] pointed out that the [patent proprietor] could have filed these new requests before the Opposition Division (OD). [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
Accordingly reversal of the decision as requested would automatically lead to maintenance of the patent in the only version before the OD. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
Under the heading “Inventive step (A 56)” the Opposition Division (OD) gave […] its reasoning on inventive step. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
” This passage is followed by a statement of why the Opposition Division (OD) should allow this request. [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
However, the present version of the set of claims before the OD was only drafted during the oral proceedings before the OD. [read post]