Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 81 - 100
of 5,903
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Nov 2007, 7:11 pm
But the cynics don't matter. [read post]
10 Nov 2012, 11:01 am
[… T]he [patent proprietor’s] arguments regarding the new prior art have already convinced the Board, without the need for introduction of any further distinguishing amendments of the claims. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 8:30 pm
No matter how you plan to do your taxes this year, you likely don’t know what all of the numbers, letters and other information on those forms mean. [read post]
15 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
A process for removing nitrogen oxides from flue gas issuing from a regenerator of a fluidized catalytic cracking unit wherein the flue gas is cleaned of substantial amounts of dust in the regenerator, the process comprising the steps of:a) directing the flue gas into a tertiary cyclone separator and separating the solids therefrom so that not more than 250mg/Nm3 of solids exit in an overflow from the tertiary cyclone separator and causing between 0.5% and 6% percentage of flue gas entering the… [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 11:13 pm
In any case, in the absence of a request for reimbursement of the appeal fee, this matter does not constitute an ancillary issue to be dealt with in appeal proceedings (see T 242/05 of 20 September 2006, point 2.3, and T 2134/12 of 16 July 2013, point 3).7. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 9:00 pm
Decision G 1/03 therefore does not apply.4.5 The first auxiliary request is thus not allowable, because the subject-matter of claim 1 extends beyond the content of the application as filed, contrary to Article 123(2) EPC.(...)7.2 The board thus concludes that the claims of the third auxiliary request are novel.8. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 am
In the grounds of appeal of 28 March 2019, the applicant referred to T 1063/18 which decided that Rule 28(2) is in conflict with Art.53(b) as interpreted by the Enlarged Board in G 2/12 and G 2/13 and that the refusal in that case based on Rule 28(2) should be set aside. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 12:54 pm
When T&G stopped making payments, Earth Trades sued T&G for breach of contract for nonpayment. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 3:36 am
In particular it may not become relevant for the assessment of inventive step (G 1/16 Reasons, point 49.1). [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 3:36 am
In particular it may not become relevant for the assessment of inventive step (G 1/16 Reasons, point 49.1). [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 604/01, the board held that objections under A 123(2) and (3) which the opponent raised during the opposition proceedings but did not further explain until OPs could not be excluded under R 71a(1) EPC 1973 because these objections were a matter of argument. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 5:30 am
Doesn't really matter: you know the old saw about lies, damn lies and...Bob wants to know just one simple thing: Why must we rely at all on these consumer surveys? [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
23 Mar 2013, 12:01 pm
Consequently the skilled reader could derive the subject-matter of claim 1 from a full reading of the application as filed. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
This was also clear from point 6.2 of G 1/15. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 6:26 am
DOTY, JAMES T. and ELIZABETH GRUBA, DEO G. and JEANNE R. [read post]
11 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Whereas a value of -6.20 nC/g is obtained in a plastic box, -9.73 nC/g are measured on the same sample when a metal box is used. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1068/07), this board, albeit in a different composition, acknowledged that the subject-matter of the disclaimer present now in claim 1 of the main request was disclosed in the application as filed. [read post]
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
The disclaimer was consequently allowable under G 1/16 and G 1/03.Auxiliary request III - Novelty vis-à-vis D1The subject-matter of claim 1 was novel over the disclosure in D1. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 4:03 pm
This has the result that the invention of claims 1 and 25 as granted falls under the prohibition of A 53(a) EPC taken in combination with R 28(c) EPC (cf. also G 2/06 [29]). [4] In agreement with decision G 1/03 the amended claims 1 and 25, both containing a disclaimer not removing more than what is necessary to disclaim subject-matter falling under the prohibition of A 53(a) EPC in combination with R 28(c) EPC, meet the requirements of A 123(2) EPC. [7] The… [read post]
