Search for: "A. T."
Results 1301 - 1320
of 881,549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2022, 5:18 am
All of this is very well documented and one needn't look far to find examples. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
According to the case law of the boards of appeal, information is “available to the public” if only a single member of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if said member of the public is under no obligation to maintain secrecy (see T 1081/01 [5], affirmed by T 1309/07 [3.2.1]). [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
See G 2/92 [2], J 3/09 [3.5.2] and T 2495/11 [2.1-2]. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
[3.4] The difficulty associated with determining the scope of protection conferred by a feature defined in terms of a “product-by-process” lies in defining the precise contribution of each process step to the nature of the product obtained (see T 223/96 [17] and T 552/91 [5.2]) [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 3:02 pm
(T 2/81, headnote 2). [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 8:16 am
T-Bone Crashes (Side-Impact Collisions) T-bone crashes, often referred to as side-impact crashes, take place when the front section of one vehicle collides with the side of another vehicle, creating a "T" configuration. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
However, they continued that “[t]he admissibility of the new evidence will be further discussed at the OPs. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 3:08 pm
See, for example, T 1208/97 [4], T 932/99 [4.3.3], T 681/01 [2.1.1]. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 5:30 pm
If there are several requests in the form of a main request and auxiliary requests ordered according to their rank, then the ED is bound by the order of the requests in its decision (T 169/96; T 540/02).In the present case the additional statement of the ED in its communication under R 51(4) and the corresponding statement in its decision violate the principle that the request is binding (Prinzip der Antragsbindung). [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the submissions of the appellant are neither sufficient nor suitable for invalidating the assumption that D4 forms part of the state of the art.I am not sure whether this decision is really in line with T 1134/06 (approved in T 1875/06 [9]) where it was stated that “ … the fact that an Internet disclosure is state of the art under A 54(2) should be proved “beyond any reasonable doubt”. [read post]
5 May 2012, 11:01 am
Since there are at present no facilities which would permit the Boards of Appeal to hold public OPs by video conference or indeed an established procedure for holding public OPs by video conference, the appellant’s request “for an opportunity ... to choose” that the OPs be held by video conference was rejected (following T 37/08 and T 1266/07). [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
(T 34/90). [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
T 1208/97 dealt with a case where the patent proprietor tried to use A 69 to read limitations into the claim. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
They would not count in favour of inventive step, even if T 1227/05 were followed. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Decision T 73/84 had pointed out that only a revocation could ensure legal certainty and that, therefore, proceedings ought to be terminated as quickly as possible by a decision. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:30 am
On Wednesday, March 25th, 2015, 5pm-6pm, Professor Eric T. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 3:05 pm
William T. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
T 59/87 and T 604/01). [read post]
16 May 2024, 5:00 am
BUILDINGS’ INDEPENDENCE WASN'T CLEARLY DEMONSTRATEDAfter a holdover proceeding was brought against a purported free-market tenant, the latter claimed she was rent stabilized because the building in which she lived, and an adjoining residential structure, constituted a “horizontal multiple dwelling” which rendered all the units therein subject to regulatory protection.The Queens County Civil Court looked at the configuration and thought that the buildings were… [read post]
3 May 2011, 3:01 pm
In other words, its position cannot change retrospectively from that of having been a party to that of never having been a party (T 1178/04 [3] and T 1081/06 [3]).In the present case, the entry of the transfer of the patent from the original patent proprietor MS to the appellant ZF has become effective on November 25, 2008, the day on which the notice of appeal was filed. [read post]
