Search for: "T. G., II"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,341
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the appeal could have been avoided if the applicant had attended the OPs before the first instance. [3.10] G 4/92 was cited by the appellant. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 4:14 am
G 3/97 and G 4/97), the consequence of which being that the opposition is inadmissible? [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 12:00 am
John G. [read post]
3 May 2019, 3:47 am
WO 2008/147506 A1.II. [read post]
30 May 2009, 6:54 pm
II, do CPC -, portanto, é tÃÂtulo executivo extrajudicial. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 1:41 am
G 3/97 and G 4/97), the consequence of which being that the opposition is inadmissible? [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:10 am
IPKat has received breaking news that the Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) yesterday decided that recently amended Rule 28(2) EPC is in conflict with Art. 53(b) EPC as interpreted by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 2/12 (Broccoli/Tomato II). [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 9:03 am
T 1079/08, Gründe 4; T 2001/12, Gründe 3). [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 12:30 am
In its preliminary opinion for G 2/21, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) raised some eyebrows by appearing to reference the standard test for sufficiency (IPKat). [read post]
15 May 2023, 12:28 am
T 1057/15, T 1069/14). [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 11:46 pm
The appellant (applicant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the examining division refusing European patent application No. 09000629.7 filed as a divisional application of European patent application No. 00100472.0.II. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Hence, the condition defined in decisions G 2/88 and G 6/88 to recognise novelty of the use of a known compound for a particular purpose is therefore here not fulfilled. [read post]
20 Nov 2010, 11:01 am
T 934/91 [2-3]; T 843/91 [6-6.3]; and also Case Law, chapters VII.D.10.1 and VII.D.10.2). [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 2:57 am
In G 1/86, the Enlarged Board had weighed up the (side) effects on the various parties involved. [read post]
22 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Reference was also made to decisions T 793/93 and T 204/00 as cited in the Case Law, 6th edition, 2010, page 560.The board, however, cannot agree with the above arguments. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
This was also clear from point 6.2 of G 1/15. [read post]
13 Jan 2019, 11:30 pm
The application claims a priority date of 30 November 2000.II. [read post]
22 Jul 2007, 10:31 am
Chief District Judge John G. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 5:01 pm
The patent proprietor criticized this approach and cited T 737/92, which had stated, in point [2.2] of its reasons:… The legal framework of any opposition case is uniquely defined by (i) the extent to which a patent is actually opposed and (ii) the grounds (in the sense of A 100(a), (b) and (c) EPC [1973]) upon which it is opposed, whilst its factual framework is determined by the facts, evidence and arguments adduced and set out in the Notice of Opposition pursuant to R… [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 6:08 am
The appellant (applicant) lodged an appeal against the decision of the examining division to refuse application No. 07 813 483.II. [read post]
