Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 101 - 120
of 53,756
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2008, 9:48 pm
Don’t tell me that words don’t matter. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 11:40 am
Further, if the mandatory “R” rating for tobacco imagery is adopted, doesn’t it follow that there should be a mandatory “R” rating for depictions of underage drinking, or of overeating, or anything else that may cause physical harm to children? [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 9:26 am
But it doesn't matter how Terry McAuliffe feels. [read post]
29 May 2009, 7:30 am
I thought it was a matter of fierce moral urgency. [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]
17 Feb 2016, 7:39 am
The Montana Supreme Court has issued an Unpublished Opinion in the following matter: CIVIL – DEPENDENT NEGLECT DA 15-0491, 2016 MT 40N, IN THE MATTER OF: M.A.W., M.L.W., and K.R.T., Youths in Need of Care. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
T 2/89 and T 328/87). [read post]
19 May 2017, 7:10 am
After T 910/03 it languished but occasionally reappeared.The Board refrains from referring the matter to the EBoA as it considers such referral not to be decisive in the present case, since according to the Board a same conclusion would be reached using both the essentiality test and the gold standard (being that the removal violates Art. 76(1) EPC).Entscheidungsgründe(...)2. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 12:24 pm
Nevertheless, it tended to the view that the simulation method underlying claim 1 of each request did not contribute to the technical character of the invention and that the subject-matter of claim 1 of each request lacked inventive step.V. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 7:35 am
SAYUNCLE: Not sure why they’re called Media Matters since they mostly don’t matter. “But I find it funny that a group of shills paid money to write hit pieces on gun rights was headed up by a guy with armed body guards. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
As far as the claim without the disclaimer is concerned, the Board is of the opinion – as was the ED – that it encompasses subject-matter that violates A 53(a) in connection with R 28(c) because the use of human embryos as a starting material in a method for obtaining embryonic stem cells that is to be used commercially, constitutes a “use … for industrial or commercial purposes” within the meaning of R 28(c) (see also the judgment of the… [read post]
16 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 1067/08 [7.2, 8.1]). [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The board is fully aware that according to the established case law the subject-matter of a product-by-process claim is not limited to products actually produced by the relevant process but also extends to products which are structurally identical to such products and which are produced by a different process (see decisions G 1/98 [4]; T 219/83 [10]). [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
According to the written decision, the ED considered that the subject-matter of this request contravened R 164(2) and R 137(5). [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
It also commented on added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, though these comments were said not to form part of the decision. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
It would, however, also have been open to the OD to continue the proceedings of its own motion under R 60(2) EPC 1973 (now R 84(2)). [read post]
2 May 2010, 3:02 pm
In general, the presently claimed subject-matter has to be examined for compliance with A 83 on the basis of the application documents as originally filed. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
This common inventive concept within the meaning of Rule 13.1 PCT and A 82 EPC, respectively, also supports the unity of the application when claim 11 according to the main request is included.If one retraces (wird … nachvollzogen) the argumentation of the ED based on the problem solved such that the known feature “Disturbing the functionality of PMCA results in reducing the motility of sperm cells” is taken into account, one also comes to the conclusion that there is unity of… [read post]
3 May 2010, 3:01 pm
This “title of the invention” is also part of the abstract (R 47(1)). [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the reference in R 50(3), in relation to the case of a missing signature, to “the party concerned” indicates that the rule addresses the filing of documents by parties to the procedure, which a person who files third party observations clearly is not, as is expressly stated in A 115 (see the last sentence).The board is aware of decision T 146/07 [3-6], dated the day before the date of the present decision and made public later, in which the… [read post]
