Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 121 - 140
of 5,909
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
It is true that in the above-mentioned decision the matter was only referred to the EBA once the statement of grounds of appeal had been filed. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 12:20 am
However, only example G of table 1 disclosed a composition with the optional alloying element V. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
This it was caused the difficulties both the [applicant] […] and the ED […] faced when trying to reasonably apply condition II of the test, based on the headnote of T 331/87 only.[2.7] But even when condition II is correctly applied, the Board has considerable doubts, at least regarding this aspect of the essentiality test, whether, in view of the narrow interpretation of the [expression] “same invention” according to the more recent case law of the Enlarged Board… [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, the examination of this ground for opposition by the Board does not constitute a “fresh” ground within the meaning of the opinion G 10/91 of the Enlarged Board of appeal, cf. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 227/88; T 472/88 and T 922/94). [read post]
24 May 2024, 5:35 pm
See Matter of C-G-T-, 28 I&N Dec. 740, 745 (BIA 2023) (explaining that “when considering future harm, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide” the respondent’s sexual orientation). [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 5:29 am
Chocolate teapots and nuclear bombs: Whole range sufficiency of mechanical inventions (T 0149/21)The relevance of G 2/21 to machine learning inventions (T 2803/18)Reliance on a silent technical effect: Application of G 2/21 to semiconductors (T 2465/19)Is ViCo a settled matter? [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
G 2/08 [5.10.7] also refers to “well-established case law” which includes decisions T 19/86, T 893/90 and T 233/96, all of which pertain to a novel group of subjects treated and were relied on by the appellant-opponent. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 1:13 am
The proprietor concluded that, accordingly, since only partial homologous recombination on limited portions of the respective genomes took place, the claimed method was not directed to a process for the production of plants involving sexually crossing the whole genomes of plants as referred to decisions G 2/07 and G 1/08, and that, consequently, decisions G 2/07 and G 1/08 did not apply and the claimed subject-matter did not fall within the exceptions of… [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
T 861/93 [5-6] and T 28/93 [4.1]). [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 1:30 am
It is established case law that claimed subject-matter is not excluded from patentability as a non-invention under Article 52(2) EPC for the sole reason that it contains features which might be considered to be non-technical (see opinion G 3/08, OJ EPO 2011, 10, point 10.13 of the Reasons, and decision T 1658/06 of 14 January 2011, point 3 of the Reasons). [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Nor has the [applicant] provided any compelling evidence that this might not be so.Moreover, the particular questions raised by the [applicant] are specific to a very limited field of subject-matter and – in contrast to, say, the questions addressed in G 3/08 relating to computer implemented inventions – are of small relevance outside that field. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
The Board then stated:[4] In summary, the board finds that claim 1 of both requests relates to the technical implementation of excluded matter in the form of game rules. [read post]
8 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Most of the case law cited by the appellant (T 128/87, T 14/89, J 13/90) is also discussed in G 2/97. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 1:23 am
The same documents D20 and D21 as used in the opposition proceedings concerning the patent in suit were invoked against the subject-matter of the application in suit. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 7:23 am
The crucial question was whether decision G 1/22 (and G 2/22) that was handed down by the EBA in October 2023 would reverse the priority assessment of T 844/18. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 6:01 pm
Thus, in line with decision G 1/03 [2.5.2] which states that “... [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, the fax shows that the page containing the notice of appeal in Italian was received at 18:26:21 whereas the Italian version was received at 18:26:37, i.e. 16 seconds later.The Board won’t have it:[1.2] The opponent (appellant 1) considered that the requirements of R 6(3) concerning the reduction of the appeal fee were not met, that the paid amount was not correct and that therefore, the appeal lodged by the patentee was to be rejected as inadmissible. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm
Edward T. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 10:41 am
The SBA’s letter approving the mentor-protégé agreement similarly stated, “[t]his agreement shall expire after one year, unless SBA approves an extension. [read post]
