Search for: "T. K."
Results 881 - 900
of 20,652
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2009, 1:10 am
Paistab, et Eestis on alanud tõeline leiutamise maania. [read post]
17 Dec 2016, 3:56 am
Broward K-9, Nov. 30, 2016, Florida Third District Court of Appeal More Blog Entries: Smith v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
It should be noted that a request for a decision based on the current state of the file does not mean that the party gives up its right to a reasoned decision (see T 1356/05 [15]). [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
It should not be left up to the party concerned and a board to construct the applicable reasons (see for instance T 1709/06 and T 1309/05). [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
As figures 1 and 2 are intended to show the same eccentric screw pump but diverge in view of the above mentioned gap, the Board notes that the figures contradict each other in this respect.[2.2] According to the established case law of the Boards of appeal, the technical disclosure of a document that forms part of the state of the art has to be considered as a whole (see T 56/87). [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:01 pm
Therefore, there have not been any fresh grounds for opposition in the appeal proceedings.The remaining question is whether the almost exclusive reference to D5 in the statement of grounds of appeal, without any in-depth discussion of the arguments provided by the OD in its decision, constitutes a statement within the meaning of A 108 and R 99(2).[1.4] According to the established practice of the Boards of appeal an appeal is not inadmissible only because it is based on evidence that has been… [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 3:05 pm
The arguments must be clearly and concisely presented to enable the board (and the other party or parties) to understand immediately why the decision is alleged to be incorrect, and on what facts the appellant bases its arguments, without first having to make investigations of their own. [2.3] Moreover it is also established case law that grounds sufficient for the admissibility of an appeal must be analysed in detail vis-à-vis the main reasons given for the contested decision (see T… [read post]
31 May 2012, 5:01 pm
Decision T 95/10 identified three reasons for this. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 11:01 am
Concerning decisions T 198/01 and T 386/07, the Board observes that the assessment of clarity is dealt with in a different manner. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 3:01 pm
T 332/87 is one of the major decisions of the Boards of appeal concerning combination of features inside a document of the prior art. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:02 pm
As stressed in decision T 614/04, it is essential that “if a predetermined wavelength is selected, the remaining features can be adapted to provide the required function... [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
T 220/83 and T 213/85). [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
T 1156/01 [2.2-3], T 412/02 [5.6-9], T 908/04 [3.1-8] and T 555/05 [3.2.7-10]), this implies that the method for measuring the parameter (or at least a reference thereto) must appear completely in the claim itself, if the invention is characterised by a parameter.[2.3] As set out above, in the present case, no such method (or reference thereto) is contained in claim 1 of the main request.[2.4] In this situation, the requirements of A 84 would still be met if it… [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 5:01 pm
This case deals extensively with the admissibility of late filed requests.The Opposition Division had revoked the opposed patent.Together with its statement of grounds of appeal (SGA), filed on April 9, 2010, the patent proprietor filed a new main request and one auxiliary request.In their replies, filed on August 26, 2010 and September 6, 2010, the opponents raised A 123(2), clarity, novelty and inventive step objections.On December 12, 2011, the Board summoned the parties to oral proceedings (OPs)… [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
Consequently, the appeal did not come into existence and the appeal fee must be refunded (see T 323/87). [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.During the examination proceedings, the Examining Division (ED) objected in a first communication dated 29 September 2008 to the claims on file. [read post]
19 Jan 2013, 11:01 am
Apparently “actuators” refers to the actuators of the air suspension system, i.e. the air bellows (also referred to as “cousins d’air” in D1).[2.5.2] The Boards of appeal of the EPO have explained in several decisions that a patent document may be its own lexicon (see, for instance, T 1321/04 and T 500/01). [read post]
20 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 1242/04 [8.3] the Board has explained that R 45 relates only to the practicability of a search and not to the potential relevance of its results in subsequent substantive examination. [read post]
27 May 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the present case differs from case T 947/99. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 5:25 pm
On the contrary by analogy with the finding of T 270/94 [2.1], D11 formed part of the legal and factual framework within which the examination of the opposition was to be conducted. [read post]
