Search for: "T. K."
Results 741 - 760
of 20,652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2014, 7:25 am
Wer mag, kann das Projekt mit dem Kauf einer Mütze oder eines T-Shirts unterstützen. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
In support of this view, reference was made inter alia to decisions of the boards of appeal T 180/95, T 47/90 and T 139/87. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
T 862/98 [2.3.2] referring to T 243/87).[2.4] This risk does not exist in a case where the composition of the OD has not been modified between the OPs and the end of the proceedings. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
In the present board’s view, a party to proceedings before the EPO has a right to be heard in OPs but has no obligation to attend OPs to which it had been summoned (see for instance T 544/94 [5]). [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm
t??? [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
T 630/08) or R 103(1)(a) EPC (see T 616/08) is applicable in the present case may be left open because both provisions require the reimbursement to be equitable by reason of a substantial procedural violation if, as here (sic), the appeal is allowed.[5.2] The [opponent] is of the opinion that the decision on the opposition, which has been taken without requesting further clarifying comments or at least giving [the opponent] an appropriate period of time of two months after… [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
Though decisions T 435/91 and T 409/91 deal with cases in which the result to be achieved is part of a product claim, the board takes the view that these decisions equally apply to process claims. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
As claim 1 of the main request no longer includes such a limitation, the board concludes that protection conferred by the patent has been extended, contrary to A 123(3).[2.11] In the impugned decision, the OD relied on decisions T 190/99 and T 749/03 as well as T 108/91 and T 438/98, all of which had been cited by the patent proprietor during opposition proceedings. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Moreover, it is unknown whether this document was indeed made available to clients without there being any obligation of secrecy and whether it has been sent to the clients at all.The arguments made in respect of document D2 also apply to document D13 in an analogous way.[1.3.3] As far as the decisions T 804/05, T 743/89 and T 55/01 are concerned, the Board is of the following opinion:Decision T 804/05 dealt with the public availability of an advertising leaflet,… [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 6:30 am
Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Attorney Philip K. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 11:24 am
Walsh, who joined K&L Gates in 2009, didn’t have an immediate comment. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Since [INC1] was published on 10 August 2000 it is pertinent prior art against the present application for subject-matter having the filing date as its effective date which is the case for claim 1.[3.2] Incorporated applications [INC2] and [INC3] do not fulfil the requirements set out in T 737/90 [3] and Case Law, 7th ed. 2013, II. [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
[1] The appeal as filed on 17 December 2008 fulfilled the requirements of A 106 to A 108 […].[2] The submissions made by [the patent proprietor’s] representative with the letter of 1 June 2012 […] indicated that the appellant had ceased to exist as a legal entity.[3] According to decision T 353/95 [2], only an existing natural or legal person can be a party to opposition proceedings (A 99(1) EPC; Lunzer/Singer, The EPC, London 1995, 99.02) and this applies also at the… [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
The way in which the claim is drafted does not exclude that in case of need alkali earth oxides be added, if the melt viscosity is to be reduced, as mentioned in paragraph [0010] of the patent specification.Moreover, wording claims such that they indicate maximum amounts is standard practice in claim drafting (also see T 988/07 [2.1.2]). [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
T 142/97 [2.2]), the main legal basis for refusing the admission of evidence are the provisions dealing with the late filing of evidence (A 114(2) EPC, A 12(4) and 13 RPBA). [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
On the contrary, it covers, in addition to an error of judgement by the OD, other situations involving a change of the factual and/or legal basis on which limitations have been made by the proprietor prior to the appeal by the opponent as the sole appellant (T 1843/09 [2.4.3-4]).Hence, the present situation, in which the broadening of the claims results from a reaction of the respondent to an objection raised by the appellant for the first time in the appeal proceedings, justifies a… [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 2:36 pm
k olarak veriliyor, bu kararada infaz taahhüt süresi sonunda ba? [read post]
12 May 2012, 10:48 am
When K-Beech's briefing veered into discussing reputational harm from unauthorized downloads, the court in a footnote points out that the owner of K-Beech doesn’t necessary have the most stellar reputation: it is worth noting that the owner of K-Beech Inc. [read post]
29 May 2012, 5:01 pm
[…]Request for referral to the EBA of Appeal (EBA)[5] The appellant requested that, in the event of any of the main request or auxiliary requests 1 and 2 not being granted, three questions be referred to the EBA (in the following “referral questions”) as a divergence existed between, on one hand, decisions T 472/88 and T 975/94 and on the other hand T 868/04 and T 725/08. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 2:46 pm
yinin de kötünün de avukatlar? [read post]
