Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 881,571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am
For the Board, an unsubstantiated request becomes effective at the date on which the request is substantiated (T 1732/10) and thus too late in the present case because it would have inevitably required an adjournment of the oral proceedings, which is excluded by Article 13(3) RPBA. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:44 am
For the Board, an unsubstantiated request becomes effective at the date on which the request is substantiated (T 1732/10) and thus too late in the present case because it would have inevitably required an adjournment of the oral proceedings, which is excluded by Article 13(3) RPBA. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 12:00 am
The proprietor also argued that T 0152/85 (OJ EPO OJ 1987, 191) stated that failure to pay an opposition fee within the required period could not be rectified after its expiry. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 7:30 am
I love T-shirts, but what I love even more is a T-shirt about radon, and what I love even more than that is seeing my daughter’s poster design about radon on a T-shirt. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 10:00 pm
AMENDMENT DIDN’T ESTABLISH “WILLFUL OR WANTON” NEGLIGENCEAfter PB’s motion to amend his complaint to add a punitive damages claim was denied by the Richmond County Supreme Court, PB appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department.While, typically, motions to amend are “freely given in the absence of prejudice,” the request will be denied when the proposed amendment is “palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 9:00 am
Why won't anyone make eye contact with us at meetings and events? [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 5:00 am
BECAUSE HE DIDN’T OWN THE CARAfter a personal injury case was filed against him in the Bronx County Supreme Court, defendant FJ alleged that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle; that the other named defendants were. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 5:00 am
And on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, concurred with that denial.Even though his lawyer mis-calendared the date (believing it would be held on February 12, rather than on January 12), since E.G.M. was present when the judge scheduled the hearing, and because he received notices to appear, which were sent to him by e-mail and regular mail, the AD1 didn’t think the guy had offered a “reasonable excuse under the circumstances. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 9:00 am
Why won't anyone make eye contact with us at meetings and events? [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
FAILED TO SHOW WHEN DRIVEWAY WAS LAST CLEANED AND INSPECTEDWhen JV slipped and fell on some ice that was allegedly on the defendants’ driveway, he filed a case in the New York County Supreme Court.And when the defendants’ request to have the case decided in their favor – via motion for summary judgment – was denied, an appeal ensued.On its review of the record, the Appellate Division, First Department, concluded that the defendants hadn’t demonstrated an… [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 9:00 am
Why won't anyone make eye contact with us at meetings and events? [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 8:37 am
Written by James T. [read post]
25 Dec 2023, 10:00 pm
’s house (in Riverhead, New York).After a personal injury case was filed, the property owner (P.W.C.) sought summary judgment – pre-trial dismissal of the case filed against it -- and the Suffolk County Supreme Court granted that request.Because it was of the view that the property owner wasn’t responsible for what transpired, and that no cognizable legal duty owed to N.F. was breached, the Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the court below and affirmed the… [read post]
18 May 2012, 5:56 am
And he definitely shouldn’t be chasing you. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 11:00 am
” [1.4] Furthermore, it is common practice at the EPO and in particular at the Boards of Appeal to examine amended claims with regard to the requirements of A 123(2) and (3) (see T 341/92, [2.3.4]; also T 915/02 [3.3]). [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 5:07 pm
In the first approach, e.g. apparent from T 931/95, there is an initial analysis of the technical character of the features of the claim and then a consideration of the inventive step of only those features. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 6:17 am
The present Board agrees with that decision and considers that the views of that Board also apply in the present case. [1.5]To read the whole decision, click here.As in the well-known decision T 930/92, the Board could have ordered apportionment of costs under A 104, but apparently it did not do so, perhaps simply because the patentee/appellant did not request it. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
The board in decision T 1599/06 [20.2] comes to the conclusion that the “try and see” approach has been applied in the assessment of inventive step in situations where, in view of the prior art, the skilled person had clearly envisaged a group of compounds or a compound and then could determine by routine tests whether or not such compound(s) had the desired effect. [69] It follows however from the observations above that highly purified factor VIII had not been identified as a… [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 3:03 pm
It is, however, considered that the evidence on file represents variants lying closer to the invention than any disclosure of D2, in particular example 3 or 13, so that the advantageous effect attributable to the distinguishing feature(s) of the invention is in fact more clearly demonstrated (T 35/85 [4]; T 197/86 [4, 6.1 and 6.1.2]). [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
Consequently, neither the ED nor the Board are able to order under R 103(1)(a) the reimbursement of the appeal fee of an appeal that has been fully allowed by the first-instance department and therefore closed before the appellant requested for the first time the reimbursement of the corresponding appeal fee (see in this respect decisions T 21/02 [3-8] and T 242/05 [1-2]). [read post]
