Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 61 - 80
of 53,754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 May 2010, 11:00 am
This was a matter for the grounds of appeal. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 227/88; T 472/88 and T 922/94). [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:01 pm
This was clear from decisions T 305/08 and T 452/05. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
In this respect the Board concurs with the findings of T 1149/97 [6.1.9-10] that a “cut-off” effect due to the grant of a patent can be seen in the formal restrictions imposed on further amendments to the patent specification by R 80 and R 138 and, substantively only in the restriction imposed by A 123(3). [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
T 79/91 [2.2-2.5], and T 246/91, point 7 (both not published in OJ). [1.8] In connection with the interpretation of R 57a EPC 1973 (now R 80) [the patent proprietor] referred to decisions T 1138/02, T 181/02, T 223/97, T 610/95, G 1/84, G 9/93, and G 1/05. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
T 556/95, T 798/95, T 394/96 and T 355/03).[4] It follows from the above that, for determining the completion of proceedings before the decision-making department, it has to be established when the decision was handed over by the formalities section to the EPO postal service for notification.[5] The appellant submitted that, in accordance with established case law (G 12/91 [9.1]; T 556/95 [6]; T 394/96 [4]) as well as with established EPO… [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:53 am
I’m off for some R&R in the Aloha State, and if you can’t figure out where that is, you probably shouldn’t be reading this blog, although you can take some comfort from the fact that you’re probably in the desired demographic of Fox’s new comedy lineup. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
There is an interesting final remark on the composition of the Examining Division (ED).[3] It is established jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal that for a decision to be reasoned it must contain a logical sequence of arguments and that all facts, evidence and arguments essential to the decision must be discussed in detail (see for instance T 278/00 [2-4]; T 1997/08 [4]).[4] The Boards of Appeal have consistently decided further that a request for a decision based on the current… [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The first two conditions of R 76(2)(c) are therefore clearly fulfilled.[1.4] With respect to the last condition (facts and evidence), according to the established case law the notice of opposition must indicate the “when”, “what” and under “what circumstances”, in particular “to whom”, the alleged public prior use was made available (T 522/94 [headnote IV, 10, 12, 20 to 25]; T 328/87 [3.3]).[1.5] In the present case, the… [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
However, as the present factual situation is different, decision T 610/95 is not suitable for justifying the dismissal of auxiliary request I based on R 80.Even considering said decisions the Board is of the opinion that auxiliary request I complies with the requirements of R 80. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 3:02 pm
Therefore, the appeal complies formally with the requirements of A 108, third sentence, and R 99(2). [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 8:28 am
Jakhu (McGill University, Canada); T. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 12:51 pm
But not matter how we got here, it is good we are having the conversation. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
An assignment of the priority rights of the inventors Wang and Zhong to the appellant or the University of Western Ontario had not taken place prior to the filing of the PCT application.The subject-matter of claim 1 (thus) lacked novelty over the disclosure in documents D20 and D21.Considering document D21 as representing the closest prior art, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 lacked an inventive step.The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 2… [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 1:25 am
Particularly, if the description is amended pre-grant in order to avoid inconsistencies in the patent specification, the deleted subject-matter cannot be reinserted into the description or claims post-grant (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, II-E-2.3.2) (T 1149/97, r.2.6, T 684/02). [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
(my emphasis)Clarity of the claims (A 84)[3.1] The ED noted in the impugned decision that the subject-matter of claim 1 was not clear, because of the use of the trademark “Dow Corning 949®Cationic” in the disclaimer.[3.2] A 84 in connection with R 43(1) requires the claims to be clear and to define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Sometimes the Boards indicated that R 65(2) EPC 1973 was preferred to R 88 EPC 1973 as it was more specific (T 715/01 [9]); (b) decisions in which R 88 EPC 1973 was used as a legal basis for the corrections (T 814/98); (c) decisions in which correction was refused because the notice of appeal contained no remediable errors but rather a mistake of law. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
Thus the disputed matter (Streitstoff) that is relevant for the appeal proceedings results from the SGA and the corresponding reply. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, it was held that claims 6 to 8, the features of which are now present in claims 1, 5 and 6, did not fulfil the requirements of R 43.However, the impugned decision is not based on grounds of which objections of non-compliance with A 84 and R 43 form part.[9] As already found in decision T 1640/06, objections that do not form part of the grounds for a refusal of an application, in particular objections in obiter dicta, can be meant as voluntary information to an… [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 11:21 am
I sure as hell wouldn't hire Elizabeth R. [read post]
