Search for: "IN THE INTEREST OF: T. G."
Results 81 - 100
of 6,527
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2010, 4:30 am
Meet savvy solo Marc G. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 7:19 pm
Meanwhile, when I type t-h-o-m-a, the ninth suggestion is Thomas Friedman. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
This is an appeal of a patent proprietor whose patent had been revoked.The decision contains an interesting passage on compliance of the main request with the requirements of A 123(2).The application as filed had 15 claims, whereby claims 1, 2 and 3 read as follows: 1. [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 2:35 pm
But, an agency can’t require the protégé member to meet the same requirements as other contractors. [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:47 am
Both of these questions were relevant in the referring decision in G 2/21, T 0116/18. [read post]
30 May 2023, 1:10 pm
” But the plaintiffs’ didn’t take issue with the fact that the protégé in an MPJV must submit at least one relevant experience project, whether individually or through the JV itself. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm
The BoA concludes that indeed such a delay can be considered a substantial procedural violation (in line with T 823/11 but deviating from T 1824/15). [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 227/88; T 472/88 and T 922/94). [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
G 3/98 [1]). [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm
Edward T. [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 1:19 pm
But it sets up an interesting dynamic for some people. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 3:15 pm
Most of which I don't respond to as the person offering to guest post knows nothing about my blog and does not blog on topics of interest to my readers. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
This it was caused the difficulties both the [applicant] […] and the ED […] faced when trying to reasonably apply condition II of the test, based on the headnote of T 331/87 only.[2.7] But even when condition II is correctly applied, the Board has considerable doubts, at least regarding this aspect of the essentiality test, whether, in view of the narrow interpretation of the [expression] “same invention” according to the more recent case law of the Enlarged Board… [read post]
20 May 2021, 12:07 pm
Interesting developments in G 1/21! [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
In this appeal against the rejection of an opposition, Board 3.3.05 had to deal with a late filed ground for opposition: lack of inventive step.I found the decision interesting because it limits/qualifies to some extent the application of the principle set out in T 131/01.*** Translation of the German original ***[1.5.1] The ground for opposition that the claims lacked inventive step was raised after the [expiration of] the nine-month time limit for filing an opposition and… [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
T 870/92, T 19/97, T 478/99, T 413/02, T 6/05). [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 7:15 am
By: Edward T. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 5:49 am
What’s your area of special interest? [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Such a procedural situation (which concerns the prosecution in a divisional application of the general teaching, whereas in the parent application the protection of a preferred embodiment is pursued) is reflected in decision G 2/10 [4.5.5, third paragraph]: “The applicant may, for example, be interested in obtaining a first quicker protection for a preferred embodiment and pursue the general teaching in a divisional application. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
Admissibility of the referral[1] In decision G 1/07 [4.2.3] the EBA pointed out that it was aware that, subsequent to decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 different opinions have been expressed in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal on whether decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 relate to the disclaiming of embodiments which are disclosed as part of the invention in the application as filed or whether in that situation the jurisprudence as previously established… [read post]
