Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 101 - 120
of 5,909
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2013, 5:01 pm
T 34/90, G 9/91 and G 10/91 [18]). [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
The objection is raised against claim 14, which the [opponent] argued to be directed to an essentially biological process for the production of animals.[3] This objection has not been mentioned in the statement setting out the grounds of appeal, but the Board notes that the opposition was originally filed inter alia on the ground that the subject-matter of the patent was not patentable under A 53(b) […].[4] The [opponent] has explained that it decided to raise the objection in view… [read post]
8 May 2023, 11:43 pm
Article 23 RPBA 2020).1.5.1 The Enlarged Board of Appeal set out in G 1/21 the conditions under which a party's request for in-person proceedings may be denied. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 11:08 pm
. 'With regard to the conditions that the disclaimer meets the requirements of clarity and conciseness and does not remove more than necessary to restore novelty, both explicitly indicated in G 1/03 (see headnote, points 2.2 and 2.4), the Board concurs with the positions expressed in T 2130/11, points 2.9 and 2.10*. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 5:15 am
Miggy struggled to contain her excitement as she considered the awesome prospect of G 1/11 ... [read post]
30 May 2012, 8:37 pm
New’s case established that lawfulness isn’t an element of the offense of violation of a lawful order, but rather is a matter to be determined by the military judge. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 11:01 am
There is one last point of G 1/07 which I wanted to mention. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
Thus, when it comes to the issue of inventive step pursuant to A 56 the ED should assess obviousness vis-à-vis the state of the art (see T 278/00 and T 87/08). [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
Moreover, claim 1 does not contain any additional feature related to any implementation in a therapeutic method.The particular approach to novelty created by decision G 6/83, therefore, does not apply to claim 1 of the main request, the subject-matter of which is equivalent to a process claim, i.e. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
” These passages, therefore, establish that the two conditions set out in headnotes 2.2 and 2.4 of G 1/03 have the same value. [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 10:28 pm
Statement Regarding Clemency Application ofJohn G. [read post]
22 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
” [2.10] Thus, although the appellant cited G 2/92 to support its view that this opinion exclusively concerned the prohibition of pursuing a non-unitary application in respect of subject-matter in respect of which no search fees had been paid and did not concern the examination procedure and subject-matter for which the search fees have been paid, the scope of G 2/92 extends – as explained supra – beyond the… [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
This was also clear from point 6.2 of G 1/15. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 11:01 am
” is that the first ethylene polymer having a value of melt flow rate MFR12 comprised between 50 g/10min and 2000 g/10min (ethylene polymer of lower molecular weight) is prepared in a second step, this not the sole possibility, because the application also states that when the first ethylene polymer has a value of melt flow rate MFR12 comprised between 50 g/10min and 2000 g/10min it must be prepared in the first step. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
G 6/88 [2.5]). [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 7:00 am
Don't miss this issue. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
The EBA based its decision on the fact that, when a decision is handed over by the formalities section to the EPO postal service for notification, it is taken from the file and is therefore removed from the power of the department that issued it, and that this moment marked the completion of proceedings before the decision-making department (G 12/91 [9.3]).It further held that once proceedings have been completed the decision-making department can no longer amend its decision but must… [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 6:05 am
G doesn’t need further FDA clearance; (2) that Rev. [read post]
16 May 2010, 7:17 am
By Steven G. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 7:11 am
With regard to the latter, the referring board identified three different lines of case law (see interlocutory decision T 116/18, Reasons 13.4-13.6).European patent EP 2 484 209 concerns an insecticide composition for controlling an insect pest. [read post]
