Search for: "MATTER OF B T B" Results 821 - 840 of 20,128
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2010, 2:03 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
(I think this is wrong, because the extra requirements of §43(a)(1)(B)—competition, materiality, and “advertising or promotion”—address all the Supreme Court’s concerns in Dastar, providing a way to protect consumers when a misrepresentation of origin really would matter to them. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:35 pm by Wolfgang Demino
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 6:01 pm by oliver randl
In this respect, the present decision is in line with decision T 1819/07 [3.5]. [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 9:45 am by Alex Craigie
  No amount of careful teaching with brilliant demonstrative exhibits can make a person with a high school education or less, who has never worked in the automotive industry and, frankly, doesn’t care much about cars at all, understand a component, and comprehend why a company chose design A over design B. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 3:20 pm by Oliver G. Randl
According to this paragraph it was possible to dramatically increase the performance of an extruder when used in the manufacture of ice cream by: (a) operating with a pitch angle which is outside what has been used up until now in the manufacture of ice cream, (b) operating with screws which have more than one thread start, whereas up until now screws with only one thread start have been disclosed, and (c) operating with extruders which are much shorter than what has been used up until now.… [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
In this respect, the [opponent] cited inter alia decisions T 932/93 and T 358/08, which confirmed that a request according to R 99(1)(c) could be implicit, the extent of the appeal being a matter for the grounds of appeal. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am by Guido Paola
(b) The appellant was summoned to oral proceedings scheduled to take place on 6 October 2017. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am by Guido Paola
(b) The appellant was summoned to oral proceedings scheduled to take place on 6 October 2017. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
This petition had successfully passed the first stage examination (R 109(2)(a)), which does not happen very often; most petitions are rejected as clearly inadmissible or unallowable.The petition concerned decision T 642/08, in which Board of Appeal 3.3.09 (referred to as “the Board”) maintained the opposed patent in amended form. [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 11:00 am by Armand Grinstajn
[VI] […] In dividing the claim into technical and non-technical features the ED merely followed the standard examination technique for subject-matter referring to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field (see T 641/00 'Comvik'). [1.3.1] The ED was free to start out from a (notorious) general-purpose computer system. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
This applies all the more if the unclear feature is essential with respect to the invention in the sense that it is designed for delimiting the subject-matter claimed from the prior art, thereby giving rise to uncertainty as to whether or not the subject-matter claimed is anticipated. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 6:22 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  As he points out, we don’t generally even ask if protecting ideas would get us more ideas b/c ideas aren’t w/in scope of copyright. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 7:49 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Interaction b/t product similarity and mark secondary meaning. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:47 am by Roel van Woudenberg
Main request1.1 The opponent raised objections against claim 1 of the main request under Article 100(c) and (b) EPC. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 7:40 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
“It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, it doesn’t matter if you smoked, or you didn’t,” says study co-author Ziyad Al-Aly at Washington University in St. [read post]