Search for: "MATTER OF K A B"
Results 721 - 740
of 2,719
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 computer system. [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, the ground of opposition under A 100(b) prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 5:18 am
Whether or not there was a procedural irregularity in the K&S vetting of a case, the firm in fact took the case and no matter how much "inadequate vetting dust" Mr. [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:01 pm
” The case relating to OT2 is therefore also not proceedings which correspond to A 105(1)(a) or (b). [read post]
11 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
As set out in documents D12 and D20, two lots falling under the scope of the claim were assessed: lot B-1 (11,1 mg of water per ml of composition) exhibiting at least no better resuspendability than lot A (2.3 mg/ml) after 15 days and 3 months, and lot B-2 (21.0 mg/ml) exhibiting an even worse one. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
E=22.9) with respect to the colorations obtained with comparative compositions B (? [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
Document D1, on the other hand, failed to distinguish such carbonate-sensitive hair colouring agents from carbonate-insensitive hair colouring agent.This argument does not, however, put into question the applicability of the problem-solution approach to the present case, it merely shows that the [applicant] defined a technical problem which is not in agreement with the claimed subject-matter. [read post]
5 May 2017, 6:14 am
Tarullo Posted by Daniel K. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, in order to delimit the subject-matter of the third auxiliary request with respect to D1, a disclaimer was inserted into claim 1 of the second auxiliary request. [read post]
13 Feb 2008, 6:10 am
P. 16(b). [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 7:04 am
§ 1.111(b). [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 12:13 pm
(E) A test of the hearing and eyesight of the applicant, and of other matters that may be necessary to determine the applicant’s mental and physical fitness to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways, and whether any grounds exist for refusal of a license under this code. (2) (A) Before a class A or class B driver’s license, or class C driver’s license with a commercial endorsement, may be issued or renewed, the applicant shall have in his or her driver record a… [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 4:44 pm
You may get a form 1099-K – but not necessarily. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 5:00 pm
The claim attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved: “the coating having a transparency to incident radiation of less than about 50% below the coating glass transition temperature and greater than about 50% above the coating glass transition temperature” Such a definition is not allowable in the present case because it appears possible to define the subject-matter in more concrete terms, viz. in terms of how the effect is to be… [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the claim defines neither any restrictive period of time for the measurements nor any specific intensity of the airway pressure changes. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
A 134(8) requires that the legal practitioner be qualified in a Contracting State, that he have his place of business in that State, and that he be entitled in that State to act as a professional representative in patent matters. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 11:01 am
(my emphasis)In what follows the Board deals with the novelty of this claim.[3] The OD found that the devices depicted in Figure 8a of document D1, Figure 11 of document D2 and Figure 3 of document D4 comprised all the individual elements of the apparatus defined in claim 22 as granted, and that, consequently, the subject-matter of this claim lacked novelty.[4] The board does not share the view of the OD. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, it follows from what the Board has stated in points [13] to [15] above that [opponent 1] could (and should) have filed document D34 together with his statement of grounds of appeal. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 1:21 pm
During the Spring, 2013 Father filed a Petition for Special Relief to (a) resolve a dispute over where the child would begin kindergarten and (b) obtain judicial approval of the revised custody schedule. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
A person is to be regarded as a party for the purpose of A 107 even if his entitlement to take part in the proceedings is brought into question and such entitlement is the subject-matter of a pending decision. [read post]
