Search for: ". OD"
Results 921 - 940
of 1,532
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2011, 7:39 am
Being a first child myself, before having Casey I hadn't really given much thought to "second child syndrome. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
In the light of these decisions, the OD concurred with the view of the proprietor that, having re [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The opponent appealed against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to reject the opposition.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read (my English translation):Gate leaf (Torblatt) for a sectional gate, in particular a roll-up gate (Deckengliedertor), wherein a wicket door (Schlupftür) is integrated in the gate leaf, the wicket door comprising a door leaf (Türblatt) and a frame (Zarge) for framing the door leaf, the gate leaf being movable along a predetermined path… [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
According to the OD, the expression was sufficiently explained in the patent and, therefore, there was no “obvious error”.Claims 1 and 2 of the main request before the Board read:1. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 4:13 pm
28 Jul 2011, 7:16 am
EAU CLAIRE, Wis. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 4:00 pm
Eccleston Law represents individual and institutional investors nationwide to recover their investment losses caused by unsuitable investment recommendations, breach od fiduciary duty, negligence or other misconduct. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 3:15 pm
Eccleston Law represents individual and institutional investors nationwide to recover their investment losses caused by unsuitable investment recommendations, breach od fiduciary duty, negligence or other misconduct. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 2:53 pm
[Social Media Law Blog]* An ode to the many bad lawyers out there, in this week’s Round Tuit. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 9:49 am
Sheehan of the Kenton Circuit Court, Kentucky, penned this ode to the joys of resolving an apparently acrimonious and well-litigated case. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
In the present case the patent proprietor, whose patent had been revoked by the Opposition Division (OD), thought that the A 123(2) objection could be overcome by pointing out that a feature that had been omitted was devoid of meaning.The claims under consideration, which are directed at a process for producing an aldehyde, are quite lengthy, so I will not reproduce them. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 5:28 am
The Blackwater fraud trial begins tomorrow. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 5:28 am
The Blackwater fraud trial begins tomorrow. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 12:28 pm
Once upon a time in Connecticut there was a Court which, to Constitutional errors, gave much thought it matters not, the Court said if an error wasn’t preserved if certain conditions are met we’ll give it the review it deserved And so the court issued its seminal holding in the case of State v. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
This week we had a decision citing T 331/87, so I thought it would be appropriate to have a closer look at this important decision itself.The decision dealt with an appeal of the patent proprietor against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.Claim 1 as granted differs from Claim 1 as filed in the following way (deleted parts in red, additions in blue):The Board agrees with the patent proprietor that the opposition should have been rejected.[2]… [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 7:44 am
Dr Charles offers us this Ode to Dads, and their child-feeding responsibilities.? [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 6:48 am
ny od przybrania naturalnej albo sztywnej pozy) oraz jego nastrój (powa? [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
This appeal was directed against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to revoke the patent.Claim 3 of the main request (and claim 1 of the auxiliary request) read:Crystalline Form IV atorvastatin (i.e. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
The objections raised in this context were not admitted into the proceedings by the OD as they constituted a new ground of opposition under A 100(b) that was late-filed and not prima facie relevant. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
One of the opponents filed an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the patent in amended form.Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:A process for producing a fried flour-based product, comprising the steps of: (a) preparing a dough comprising flour, water and an added lipolytic enzyme which has phospholipase activity in the range of 0.5- 45 kLEU per kg flour, (b) holding the dough during or after mixing, and (c) frying the dough to obtain the… [read post]
