Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 81 - 100
of 53,754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
It is undisputed that in the present case the applicant has made use of this opportunity in the examination proceedings (R 86(3) EPC 1973 and R 137(2), respectively) and finally has decided to request the grant of a patent covering the combination of features M3+M4. [4.2] Even during the examination proceedings, further amendments of the application can only be made with the consent of the ED (R 86(3) EPC 1973 and R 137(3), respectively). [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
In contrast to R 51(3) EPC 1973, which has remained unchanged as to its substance when becoming R 71(2)EPC 2000:A 94(3) has undergone some change (as compared to A 96(2) EPC 1973):and R 137(2) and (3) as in force today is quite different from R 86(2) and (3) EPC 1973:If my understanding of the situation is correct, nowadays the applicant uses its single opportunity to amend without the consent of the ED when answering the notification under R 70a (or… [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:01 pm
,R-1 such that g.c.d {qj,p-1} = 1 and qj > 6, qj > q(j-1) for each j = 1, 2, ... [read post]
8 May 2010, 11:00 am
T 389/87 [5.3-4]; T 561/96 [4.3]). [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 5:31 am
The claims presently on file differ from the claims not allowed in T 1676/11, for example, in that the claims refused under T 1676/11 included product claims whereas the requests presently on file contain only process claims, the subject-matter of said process claims differing substantially from the process claims decided upon in T 1676/11. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The board thereby follows the well-established case law on the interpretation of R 86(4) EPC 1973 see, e.g., T 708/00 [17], T 274/03 [5,6] and T 141/04 [5], it being noted that R 86(4) EPC 1973 has the same wording as R 137(4) (as in force at the date the ED took its decision), which, as from 1 April 2010, is included in R 137(5). [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 10:17 am
Why don’t people trust lawyers and does it really matter? [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 2:13 am
It finds that R.137(5) does not apply since the request corresponds to a combination of the original claims. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
The Board held this amendment to be a fair attempt to overcome the objection of insufficiency of disclosure raised by the respondent during the opposition procedure, R 80 EPC 1973. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm
In respect of this subject-matter the question thus arises whether in the present case the test of R 28(d) should be applied per analogiam and/or whether the balancing test developed in decision T 19/90 and endorsed by decision T 315/03 should be applied under A 53(a). [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 2:01 am
The TBA thus found that whilst the cited prior art appeared to anticipate the claimed subject matter (r. 2.2), anticipation requires that the prior art teaching must be reproducible by the skilled person (r. 2.3).The TBA accepted that if the reasoning of T 0990/96 were to be followed, the novelty of the claimed subject matter would have to be denied in view of the prior art (r. 3.5). [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
[1.1] Under the provisions of R 111(2), appealable decisions must be reasoned. [read post]
16 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
Thus the situation corresponds to one of the exceptions provided in R 43(2)(c) according to which the European patent application may contain more than one independent claim of the same category.Moreover, the inventions according to claim 1 or 2 have the technical relationship that is required by R 44. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
The search division had issued a declaration under R 45 EPC 1973 on the grounds that the claims related to subject-matter excluded from patentability and commonplace implementation features. [read post]
13 Aug 2007, 5:22 pm
DETAILS THAT DON'T MATTER, in modern journalism. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
Taking account of the structural formula of the imidazole given in D1, which comprises the two substituents R**(2) and R**(4), and the imidazole description in the English abstract it is clear that the imidazole can be substituted by alkyl groups in the imidazole positions 2 and 4, i.e. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
This decision deals with the following request for correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board of appeal, filed on July 12, 2012:The Board explained that it did not see any reason to correct the minutes.The opponent replied as follows, on September 19, 2012:Here is what the Board had to say on that matter:*** Translation of the German original ***[1] Contrary to the opinion of the respondent/opponent 3, as far as the contents of minutes of OPs are concerned, the… [read post]
25 May 2011, 9:23 am
Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) hasn’t gotten a lot of help from his GOP colleagues in defending against scurrilous attacks on his Medicare reform plan. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 2:17 pm
'Pedigree' shouldn’t and doesn’t matter. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
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]
