Search for: "MATTER OF T B"
Results 541 - 560
of 20,081
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Moreover, in the context of inventive step, caution is required in applying old decisions concerning non-technical subject-matter like decision T 333/95 since the relevant case law has experienced some important development as explained in decision T 154/04 […].In the present case, the only relevant technical aspects of the invention are standard programming features for implementing the idea of displaying search results in connection with supplier logos on a… [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 6:31 pm
B took the matter to the General Court, where he again lost. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 7:15 am
Post-published evidence in support that the claimed subject-matter solves the technical problem the patent in suit purports to solve may be taken into consideration, if it is already plausible from the disclosure of the patent that the problem is indeed solved (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 8th edition, I.D.4.6; T 1329/04, point 12 of the Reasons; T 1043/10, point 12 or the Reasons).Thus, for post-published evidence to be taken into account, it is necessary to… [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 6:53 am
D&M Holdings Inc. d/b/a The D+M Group et al, 1-14-cv-01330 (DED September 9, 2015, Order) (Andrews, J.) [read post]
16 May 2018, 7:15 am
" Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Paw Prints Genetics v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
In the decision under appeal the ED held that it was not plausible, on the basis of the disclosure in the application and in particular Examples 4 and 5, that the solution, as then claimed in claims 10 to 16, solved the problem underlying the application.[14] The boards have regularly considered in the context of the evaluation of inventive step whether or not “the problem is solved” (see for example T 187/93 [19] or T 939/92 [2.4.1 or 2.5.1]) and have in cases where… [read post]
11 Jun 2017, 8:34 pm
After all, the FBI handled the shipping, the defendants didn’t direct the agents to ship the guns to the U.S., and – as a matter of law – the agents could not violate the substantive statutes. [read post]
5 Oct 2014, 1:48 pm
In addition, the Court also considered the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need to protect the community akin to Matter of Jeremy L., Matter of Justin H., Matter of Samantha T. and Matter of Ashlie B. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal the standard of disclosure for this requirement is that it must be possible to reproduce the invention on the basis of the original application documents without any inventive effort and undue burden, whereby the skilled person may use his common general knowledge to supplement the information contained in the application, textbooks and general technical literature forming part of the common general knowledge (see e.g. decisions T… [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 10:05 am
You can’t take it away from Larry Flynt and keep it for yourself. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 1:12 pm
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
G 1/05 [11.1] and T 600/08 [2.3]. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
G 1/93 [headnote 2] indicates a last possible way out:“A feature which has not been disclosed in the application as filed but which has been added to the application during examination and which, without providing a technical contribution to the subject-matter of the claimed invention, merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject-matter of the claimed invention as covered by the application as filed, is not to… [read post]
15 May 2011, 3:01 pm
The appellant had implicitly acknowledged this contradiction by limiting the claims to signed data […]. iii) The advantages linked to the new features (b) and (c) were not related in any obvious way to avoiding an unauthorised manipulation, which was the only problem mentioned in the description, and the Guidelines for examination (C-IV 9.8.2) did not allow a corresponding reformulation of the problem […].[3] R 86(4) EPC 1973 lays down that amended claims may not relate to (1)… [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
Further, the court reasoned that even if the “written recommendation” prerequisite was necessary, it was met, in that it was “evident” that the parties would have rejected any explicit recommendation because they had failed to reach an agreement at the informal conference, so that instead “[t]he recommendation following the informal conference * * * was for the matter to ‘be referred’” for a formal ALJ hearing “‘at… [read post]
7 Sep 2009, 10:02 pm
(Suggestion (b) above simply borrows from the statute's own statement of policy). [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
If a person is a professional representative, then his/her employment status simply should not matter. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 4:12 am
Recall how, just five years earlier even many doctors didn’t understand the dangers of Group B strep, how to prevent it, or how to treat it. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 11:34 am
Except as provided in subsection b. and in N.J.S. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
Novelty[3] Since it was not contested by the [patent proprietor] that the washing machine with model number WD-R100C constituting the established public prior use, as exemplified in Appendix B, comprises all features of claim 1 of the patent in suit and since the Board finds no reason to conclude otherwise, the subject-matter of claim 1 lacks novelty (A 54(1)) and the [patent proprietor’s] main request is therefore not allowable. [read post]
