Search for: "T. B.1."
Results 121 - 140
of 29,923
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2019, 3:45 am
(b) The sole independent claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request was novel over D1, D9, D10 and D18 and involved an inventive step over D2 as closest prior art.IV. [read post]
15 May 2017, 2:32 am
Since the current request was a legitimate response to the preliminary opinion of the Board, does not introduce additional complexity into the proceedings and could be dealt with without adjournment of the oral proceedings, the Board admitted it into the appeal proceedings.Clarity and added subject-matterThe appealed decision found that the following features of the method of claim 1 of the then pending main request infringed the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC:(a) "selecting… [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
In this appeal the Board examined the inventive step of claim 1 of the main request, which read:1. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 6:52 am
In the annex to the summons to oral proceedings the board presented its preliminary opinion that, inter alia:- the ground of Article 100(b) EPC did not hold against the main request;- the subject-matter of claims 1 and 8 of the main request lacked novelty both over the content of the disclosure of D1 and over the content of the disclosure of D2; and- claims 1 and 8 of the first auxiliary request contravened the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.IV. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 6:54 am
Like its federal counterpart, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
10 Sep 2009, 10:09 am
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit weighed in on FRCP 51(b)(1)'s requirement that "[t]he court must inform the... [read post]
15 May 2017, 12:05 pm
Washington Post op-ed: If Retail Politics Doesn’t Kill This $1 Trillion Tax, the Supreme Court Should, by Theodore Olson: “[B]order adjustment” is in serious constitutional jeopardy. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 8:18 am
Like its federal counterpart, Arkansas Rule of Evidence 901(b)(1) provides that a party can authenticate evidence through the "[t]estimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 5:15 am
Like its federal counterpart, Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(D)(1)(b) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 5:38 am
Like its federal counterpart, New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) provides that: A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
13 May 2019, 8:43 am
Rules: 1. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 8:21 am
343.305 (1) (b), any motor vehicle while composing or sending an electronic text message or an electronic mail message. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 6:56 am
Like its federal counterpart, Ohio Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(b) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 11:34 am
im trying to download ALL the correct paperwork for my divorce. 1 petition 2 notice of action 3 affidavit of service 4 motions 5 order i was told to do it in this order BUT i can't figure out what they all mean. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
T 861/93 [5-6] and T 28/93 [4.1]). [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Moreover, the preamble of claim 1 now describes a water reservoir of the controllable mist generator that is connected to the water outlet. [read post]
11 May 2021, 8:54 am
Disinfectant in the form of a working mixture which comprises(a) 0.05 to 0.02% by weight of 1-(2-ethylhexyl) glycerol ether and(b) 1.0 to 2.0% by weight of phenoxyethanol. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 3:03 pm
According to the Board, no requirement of the EPC prohibits amending an application in order to meet R 42(1)(b).The present decision confirms this approach. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 11:06 pm
En particulier, la figure 2 du document D1 (page 318) est reproduite dans le mémoire du recours et comprend les signes de référence de la revendication 1 (voir la figure reproduite ci-dessous).FORMULE/TABLEAU/GRAPHIQUELa combinaison des documents D1 et D3 par rapport à la revendication 1 a déjà été exposée dans le mémoire d'opposition du 16 août 2010, voir le troisième… [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
A 56[3.1] The subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent in suit relates to the (a) use of valaciclovir in the manufacture of a medicament (b) for oral administration (c) for the suppression of recurrent genital herpes in a human host (d) at a once daily dose (e) of 500 mg. [3.2] Document D5 represents the closest state of the art. [read post]
