Search for: "T. K."
Results 801 - 820
of 20,652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2013, 6:13 am
MHP’li Alim Işık, “ekonomik suça ekonomik olmayan ceza” tartışmalarına yol açan İcra İflas Kanunu hükümlerini Meclis gündemine taşıdı. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
(In this context, attention is drawn to decisions T 1233/05 [4.4], T 230/07 ([headnote, 4.1.6] and T 1130/09 [3.2] according to which the demonstration of a technical effect over a sub-range is not decisive for acknowledging novelty. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
On the contrary, the case law contemplates exceptions to the general rule mentioned above and allows in particular circumstances the establishment of CGK on the basis of the content of patent specifications (see T 890/02 [2], and “Case Law of the Boards of Appeal” EPO, 6th edition, 2010, chapter I, section C.1.5 and last paragraph of section C.3.2.6), and in particular when a series of patent specifications provides a consistent picture that a particular technical procedure was… [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 7:51 am
The post Did She Or Didn’t She? [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
According to the case law of the boards of appeal, information is “available to the public” if only a single member of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if said member of the public is under no obligation to maintain secrecy (see T 1081/01 [5], affirmed by T 1309/07 [3.2.1]). [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
See G 2/92 [2], J 3/09 [3.5.2] and T 2495/11 [2.1-2]. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
[3.4] The difficulty associated with determining the scope of protection conferred by a feature defined in terms of a “product-by-process” lies in defining the precise contribution of each process step to the nature of the product obtained (see T 223/96 [17] and T 552/91 [5.2]) [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm
(T 2/81, headnote 2). [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
However, they continued that “[t]he admissibility of the new evidence will be further discussed at the OPs. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 3:08 pm
See, for example, T 1208/97 [4], T 932/99 [4.3.3], T 681/01 [2.1.1]. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 5:30 pm
If there are several requests in the form of a main request and auxiliary requests ordered according to their rank, then the ED is bound by the order of the requests in its decision (T 169/96; T 540/02).In the present case the additional statement of the ED in its communication under R 51(4) and the corresponding statement in its decision violate the principle that the request is binding (Prinzip der Antragsbindung). [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the submissions of the appellant are neither sufficient nor suitable for invalidating the assumption that D4 forms part of the state of the art.I am not sure whether this decision is really in line with T 1134/06 (approved in T 1875/06 [9]) where it was stated that “ … the fact that an Internet disclosure is state of the art under A 54(2) should be proved “beyond any reasonable doubt”. [read post]
5 May 2012, 11:01 am
Since there are at present no facilities which would permit the Boards of Appeal to hold public OPs by video conference or indeed an established procedure for holding public OPs by video conference, the appellant’s request “for an opportunity ... to choose” that the OPs be held by video conference was rejected (following T 37/08 and T 1266/07). [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
(T 34/90). [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
T 1208/97 dealt with a case where the patent proprietor tried to use A 69 to read limitations into the claim. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
They would not count in favour of inventive step, even if T 1227/05 were followed. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Decision T 73/84 had pointed out that only a revocation could ensure legal certainty and that, therefore, proceedings ought to be terminated as quickly as possible by a decision. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 9:19 pm
PHILIP K. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 4:56 am
Don’t get into a quarrel 7. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
T 59/87 and T 604/01). [read post]
