Search for: "MATTER OF R T" Results 541 - 560 of 53,770
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
The procedural decision of an OD to disregard submissions forms an essential element of its decision-making process and as such belongs to the issues subject to review when the final decision of the OD is challenged on its merits (T 986/93 [2.4]). [3.5] The OD considered that the moiety -NHC(=O)(CH2)(CH2)phenyl present in compounds 54a, 126, 129 or 130 did not fall within the definition of the residue R**(1) of claim 1 of the patent in suit, because the term “amino” was… [read post]
10 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm by Armand Grinstajn
The decision T 587/98, therefore, is not considered to be particularly relevant to the present case. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 11:01 am by Oliver G. Randl
On June 2, 2010, the appellant filed a request to the ED for correction of the decision according to R 140. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
On the subsequent pages of the notice of opposition, the indication of facts, evidence and arguments concern exclusively the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
22 Oct 2010, 6:17 pm
I definitely know now which firm’s card to have in my wallet and refer all family and friends to for any type of legal matter. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
According to established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal, to satisfy the requirement of R 68(2) a decision must contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which justify its tenor. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 10:21 am
Review Brah is proof that it doesn't matter how you look if you figure out an approach to visual style that's neat, clean, and retro. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 3:04 am by J
R (Cala Homes (South) Ltd) v Secretary of State (No.2) [2011] EWCA Civ 639 is one that we may have missed when it first came out (or we decided not to do it – we can’t quite remember now), but, given that I have some free time this morning, I thought I’d do a short note on it. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This means that, contrary to the suggestion of the [patent proprietors], the board’s decision concerning A 123(2) is not res judicata and was open to challenge, for example by an opponent citing A 100(c) in the notice of opposition; this would be comparable to the situations arising in T 1099/06 and T 167/93. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 6:02 am by Staci Zaretsky
Spoiler: it doesn’t really matter. [read post]
26 Sep 2018, 10:57 am by David M. Ward
Set big goals that inspire you but that aren’t so big that you don’t believe you can achieve them. (2) Quality and Quantity Key Results. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver
The discussion specifically concerned the feature (a) which relates to “an array of fluidic elements, at least some of the fluidic elements comprising fluidic amplifiers, the array having a face plate and a back plate” (reference numerals omitted). [5.1.1] An interpretation of the claimed subject-matter may be made by taking into account the whole context of the disclosure of the patent (decision T 467/02 [2.3]). [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am by Guido Paola
A claim can cover much more than what it discloses, thus also embodiments which are not originally disclosed, but this is irrelevant for the evaluation of added subject matter. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am by Guido Paola
A claim can cover much more than what it discloses, thus also embodiments which are not originally disclosed, but this is irrelevant for the evaluation of added subject matter. [read post]