Search for: "T. K."
Results 701 - 720
of 20,652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
See T 670/95 [2], T 413/02 [3]. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
As stated in decision T 730/05 [3.2, last sentence] and in decision T 1554/05 [2.1, penultimate sentence] “the other relevant cases of which the board is aware, dealing mainly with the question of whether an applicant is allowed to resile from its indication of background art, either implicitly or explicitly take the view that, if not resiled from or clearly not prior art for other reasons, it may be relied upon as prior art (see T 654/92, T 691/94,… [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
[…]Decision T 2017/07[1.7] Basically (sinngemäß) this view was also held in decision T 2017/07. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
When sloppy drafting meets thoughtless amendments, the outcome may be deadly.The appeal was against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to revoke the patent for lack of novelty.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:A cartridge (1) for use in a beverage preparation machine, the cartridge containing one or more beverage ingredients (200) and being formed from substantially air- and water-impermeable materials, wherein the one or more beverage ingredients is a liquid chocolate… [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Reference is made to T 1143/06, as well as to T 1741/08, from this board in a different composition, which discusses the case law in this area, including the case cited by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, T 643/00. [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
He further referred to decision T 962/98 to illustrate that an intermediate generalisation (from solar panel to power supply) could be admissible under A 123(2). [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
If the applicant maintains his request for amendment, the application has to be refused under A 97(2), since there is no text which has been approved by the applicant and allowed by the ED (see A 113(2), decisions T 647/93; T 946/96 and T 237/96). [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal that might help you to become familiar with some intricacies of G 1/07.The application dealt with guidance in adjusting bone incision blocks. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:33 pm
T 19/90). [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the granted patent read: A method for determining T-cell epitopes within a protein comprising the steps of: (a) obtaining from a single human blood sample a solution of dendritic cells and a solution of naïve CD4+ and/or CD8+ T-cells; (b) promoting differentiation in said solution of dendritic cells; (c) combining said solution of differentiated dendritic cells and said naïve CD4+ and/or CD8+ T-cells with a peptide of interest; (d) measuring the… [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
This very long – 123 pages – decision contains lots of interesting procedural aspects (it’s one of those decisions where the appellants are desperate enough to invoke Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention, which is never a good sign) and is well worth skimming through. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 11:25 am
After all, right now we have titles scattered all over the K schedules and it doesn't seem to bother the user. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 10:16 am
There hasn’t been a lot of hard evidence. [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 4:03 pm
I don’t much care where— said Alice. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
.% of o-phthalic acid (a 1,2-dicarboxylic acid) is not excluded by the open formulation of Claim 1 of the main request.[6.5] Therefore, embodiments that were not encompassed by Claim 1 as granted are in fact encompassed by Claim 1 of the main request, so that the protection conferred has been extended, contrary to A 123(3).[6.6] Consequently, the main request is not allowable.Alleged divergence between two decisions of the Boards of AppealRequest of a referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal… [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
The competent BoA in cases T 472/88 [2] as well as T 326/02 [6.1-5] and T 381/02 [2] come to the same conclusion as decision T 301/87.These relevant decisions of the BoA distinguish between factual amendments, which are to be examined in view of compliance with the requirements of the EPC pursuant to A 102(3) EPC 1973, and between merely formal, syntactical claim amendments, which do not give rise to a new objection outside A 100.[2.4] The Board adopts this view… [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
The Board in T 654/10 evidently considered them to be so in that case. [read post]
31 May 2011, 3:01 pm
This conclusion was reached not only where the appeal was directed against the rejection of the opposition by the first instance (see T 329/88; T 165/95; T 749/01; T 436/02 and T 289/06), but also where the appeal was directed against an interlocutory decision according to which the opposed patent could be maintained in amended form (see T 762/89 and T 714/93). [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
T 457/89 [1]). [read post]
