Search for: "MATTER OF T A-K J A-K"
Results 61 - 80
of 1,033
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2011, 3:01 pm
T 198/84) requires that the following criteria be taken into consideration: the selected sub-range has to be (a) narrow, which is doubtlessly the case here (20 nm) and (b) sufficiently far removed from the known boundary values and examples, respectively, which is also the case here. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
This appeal led to a decision by this board in a different composition (cf. decision T 1080/01 cited in [opponent’s] Notice of opposition). [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 7:01 am
Haroro J. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, however, Ms Y had, for some inexplicable reason, failed to correct the wrong time limit. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 8:55 pm
K. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 3:09 pm
J 3/95 and T 167/93). [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 3:46 am
Determining whether the claims are novel and involve an inventive step; S 2(1)(j)4. [read post]
24 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
According to the minutes […] the OD has concluded that certain amendments did not extend the [claimed] subject-matter beyond the contents of the application as filed, but has identified an essential feature that was not found in claim 1 anymore. [read post]
21 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
Basic principles, second paragraph; J 14/00 [1.2.2]; J 9/04 [1.2.2]; J 2/05 [1.2.2], Singer/Stauder, EPÜ, fifth edition in German, 2010, article 2, point 9). [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
There was one example, but it was not suited to show that the claimed subject-matter was enabled (see point [7] of the reasons), i.e. an example was in principle absent. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
A “substantial procedural violation” is an objective deficiency affecting the entire proceedings (J 7/83). [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 10:29 am
Please take a few minutes to check out these other blog posts on the letter “K. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 10:29 am
Please take a few minutes to check out these other blog posts on the letter “K. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
It also argued that an objective assessment must be based on the structure of the decision […].[6] The board agrees that a “substantial procedural violation” is an objective deficiency affecting the entire proceedings (J 7/83 [12]) which is to be determined on an objective basis (see J 32/95 [4.1]). [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
As to this, it is important to bear in mind that opposition is an independent procedure following the grant procedure and is not to be seen as a continuation or extension of the examination procedure (see decisions G 1/84 [9]; G 9/91 and G 10/91; and for example decision T 198/88). [read post]
1 Feb 2020, 5:31 am
The Court of Justice looked at the matter in Huawei v ZTE (Case C170/13) ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, [2016] RPC 4, and the English courts in Unwired Planet Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd) (Birss J) [2017] EWHC 2988 (Pat) and a lengthy decision of the Court of Appeal given by Lord K itchin at [2018] EWCA 2344 (not yet on Bailii, and if not yet will it ever be?) [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
J. as its professional representative having Saint-Gobain Recherche as professional address (parts III. and IV. of form 2300.1 received by the EPO on 11 July 2005). [1.3] In the view of the board, the filing of the notice and statement of grounds of appeal on a letterhead porting his professional address does not shed doubts on whose name the appeal was filed, i.e. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
J 20/85, [4(a)] and J 3/90) and is intended to ensure that the parties to the proceedings are not taken by surprise by grounds mentioned in an adverse decision (cf. inter alia T 669/90; T 892/92; T 594/00 and T 343/01, see “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 5th edition 2006, VI.B.1, page 322). [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
T 666/90, T 552/97 and T 1439/05), the fact that the final requests were not established contravenes the provisions of Article 113(2) EPC and is considered a substantial procedural violation. [3] The substantial procedural violation requires that the decision under appeal be set aside and justifies the reimbursement of the appeal fee according to R 67 EPC 1973 (applicable here, see J 10/07 [7]). [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
”It follows from Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that the EPC should be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of the treaty’s object and purpose (see J 9/07 [13]). [read post]
