Search for: "MATTER OF R T"
Results 121 - 140
of 53,750
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2011, 10:26 am
REALLY, don’t discuss confidential business matters on a crowded train. [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]
5 Oct 2014, 1:48 pm
In addition, the Court also considered the needs and best interests of the respondent as well as the need to protect the community akin to Matter of Jeremy L., Matter of Justin H., Matter of Samantha T. and Matter of Ashlie B. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
T 556/95, T 798/95, T 394/96 and T 355/03).[4] It follows from the above that, for determining the completion of proceedings before the decision-making department, it has to be established when the decision was handed over by the formalities section to the EPO postal service for notification.[5] The appellant submitted that, in accordance with established case law (G 12/91 [9.1]; T 556/95 [6]; T 394/96 [4]) as well as with established EPO… [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
Don’t just post a sign in your lawn. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 8:36 am
By the way, CC&R stands for Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions. [read post]
13 Aug 2007, 5:22 pm
DETAILS THAT DON'T MATTER, in modern journalism. [read post]
2 May 2019, 9:08 am
This will help Is marketing boring (and does it matter)? [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
T 72/95 [5.4]). [2.2] According to the appellant, claimed subject-matter as a whole should be examined for the presence of an inventive step once the subject-matter as a whole has been found to meet the technology criterion of A 52(1)(2)(3). [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 9:26 am
Don't look for... [read post]
11 May 2011, 7:20 am
I advocate budgets for “major matters” handled by outside counsel. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 9:38 pm
§ 101 (see Memorandum entitled "Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions"). [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]
25 Jan 2011, 5:59 pm
David Rivera’s (R-FL-25) shtick isn’t playing well in Washington DC. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 4:25 am
Blue Lives Matter. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:28 am
Finally, the Federal Circuit notes that “[b]ecause ‘encrypted communications’ and ‘program code’ are not being claimed here for the content they communication, they are not printed matter,” and thus, “[t]he inquiry stops there; if the claim element is not printed matter, we need not consider whether it has a functional or structural relation to its substrate. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 5:56 am
Gender Stereotypes are Destroying Girls, and They're Killing Boys It doesn't matter where in the world you live. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
(my emphasis)Clarity of the claims (A 84)[3.1] The ED noted in the impugned decision that the subject-matter of claim 1 was not clear, because of the use of the trademark “Dow Corning 949®Cationic” in the disclaimer.[3.2] A 84 in connection with R 43(1) requires the claims to be clear and to define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. [read post]
NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO, YOU CAN’T ESCAPE THE PAPARAZZI THESE DAYS: NASA’s Curiosity Rover Caught in…
6 Aug 2012, 5:58 pm
NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO, YOU CAN’T ESCAPE THE PAPARAZZI THESE DAYS: NASA’s Curiosity Rover Caught in the Act Landing. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 3:02 pm
T 79/91 [2.2-2.5], and T 246/91, point 7 (both not published in OJ). [1.8] In connection with the interpretation of R 57a EPC 1973 (now R 80) [the patent proprietor] referred to decisions T 1138/02, T 181/02, T 223/97, T 610/95, G 1/84, G 9/93, and G 1/05. [read post]
