Search for: "T. K."
Results 561 - 580
of 20,652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The opponent does not have to have any special interest in challenging the patent: G 1/84 and T 798/93. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 5:00 am
It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post". [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 5:01 am
Apparently, preventing the shifting of the gain or loss isn’t as terribly important as one might have guessed. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the Board agrees with the general principle of interpretation as set out in T 190/99, according to which, when considering a claim, the skilled person should rule out interpretations which are illogical or which do not make technical sense. [read post]
WELL, THIS SHOULD OVERCOME ALL THE CLAIMS THAT HE’S A CORRUPT TOOL OF LOBBYISTS: K Street goes to t…
28 Jul 2010, 7:14 am
WELL, THIS SHOULD OVERCOME ALL THE CLAIMS THAT HE’S A CORRUPT TOOL OF LOBBYISTS: K Street goes to the defense of Charlie Rangel. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 10:01 am
Workers’ frustration with their 401(k) investments isn’t an isolated case; their discomfort extends — for the first time — to benefits generally. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Thereby, said statement gave detailed reasons why the decision under appeal should be set aside and indicated the facts and evidence in support of the respective arguments.R 99(2) does not exclude that such evidence is submitted for the first time in appeal proceedings nor does it require that this evidence is admitted into the proceedings (see T 389/95 [1,3]).Therefore, the fact that the [opponent] relied inter alia on documents D6 to D13 in its statement setting out the grounds for appeal… [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 7:14 am
The post Repeal & Replace of ObamaCare, a/k/a RyanCare appeared first on Law Office of Alexis B. [read post]
8 Mar 2017, 10:41 am
The post Repeal & Replace of ObamaCare, a/k/a RyanCare appeared first on Law Office of Alexis B. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 7:16 am
The post Repeal & Replace of ObamaCare, a/k/a RyanCare appeared first on Law Office of Alexis B. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Decision T 84/02 cited by the opponents and by the Board and decision T 73/88 are, therefore, contradictory, and, moreover, contrary to balance between the parties.The Board admits that the expression “by way of cross-appeal” does not fit very well into the procedural system of appeals under the EPC. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
In a recent post I have presented decision T 565/07 (and T 240/04) where auxiliary requests were refused because they were not converging. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 3:01 pm
In a recent post I have presented decision T 565/07 (and T 240/04) where auxiliary requests were refused because they were not converging. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1515/07 and T 1411/08), or whether the features were erroneously overlooked or misjudged, i.e. an “error of judgement” (cf. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Such a negative limitation can therefore be deduced from the application as filed (see T 278/88). [3.2] However, negative limitations may be used only if adding positive features to the claim either would not define more clearly and concisely the subject-matter still protectable (see T 4/80) or would unduly limit the scope of the claim (see T 1050/93). [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
It is established Board of Appeal case law that further grounds which would lead to a refusal of a European patent application in the examination proceedings cannot be successfully presented in opposition proceedings (see for example G 1/91; J 22/86 [18]; T 99/85 [4]; T 127/85; T 301/87 [3.3-4]; T 550/88 [4]; T 428/95 [4.2]). [read post]
11 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
”A similar position is also held by other Boards of appeal, as can be seen from the cited decisions T 382/96 and T 446/00, but also decisions T 1126/97 [3.1.1 et seq.] and T 47/03 [1.1, 1.4 et seq.] as well as T 745/03 [2.2] and T 221/0 [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 12:01 pm
This was acknowledged in decision T 465/92. [read post]
7 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
If they can’t make that deadline, they need to amend their Form 10-K to include the Part III information. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 3:15 pm
Maybe they’re right that the system is slanted, but K-Fed is hardly the poster boy for responsible parenting. [read post]
