Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 881,571
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Feb 2010, 3:01 pm
During the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board the [opponent] requested to record in the minutes of the proceedings that the expression “oxygen-free atmosphere” in present claim 1 had the meaning of “completely oxygen-free atmosphere”. [5.1] However, according to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal (see T 928/98 and T 263/05 [8 to 8.11]) it is not the function of the minutes to record statements which a party considers will be of use to it in any… [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
Therefore, decision T 142/05 is not relevant for the present case. [read post]
20 Jun 2010, 4:19 pm
But no matter how hard you try, it just doesn’t fit like it used to. [read post]
11 Sep 2022, 3:30 pm
. *** She’s doing that with t-shirts and pins, free for students, and all designed around the books unbanned QR code. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
In case of doubt the board had, so the argument, no choice according to T 1505/06 [3.1] but to remit the case. [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 1:00 am
The recent decision T 1418/17 suggests that a Board of appeal should not do so. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 7:50 pm
How are the Bears and the NFL going to handle the inevitable signs, t-shirts, chants, etc. that are going to be about feet, foot fetishes, FOOTball, "Can I smell them," and everything else that this type makes possible for obnoxious and possibly drunk fans? [read post]
3 Oct 2012, 9:01 am
This occasion is as good as any other for promoting my paper on one aspect of the failed AT&T/T-Mobile merger, Merger to Monopsony: AT&T, T-Mobile, and the Clayton Act. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
In T 290/86 the claimed method for removing plaque from teeth inevitably had a therapeutic effect, i.e. the effect of preventing caries and periodontal diseases, which effect was confirmed in the impugned patent. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 12:47 pm
Deconstructing Legal Analysis, a 1L Primer By Peter T. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 6:57 am
The intention to authorise debiting of the deposit account does NOT already allow the EPO to act on such authorisation and carry out such intent where the EPO, under the deposit account system, already holds such money in trust (deviation in particular from T 1265/10, at point 15), (see point 3.4.3 of the quotation from the summons under point 1 of the Reasons).2. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 6:57 am
The intention to authorise debiting of the deposit account does NOT already allow the EPO to act on such authorisation and carry out such intent where the EPO, under the deposit account system, already holds such money in trust (deviation in particular from T 1265/10, at point 15), (see point 3.4.3 of the quotation from the summons under point 1 of the Reasons).2. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 1:39 am
In this case, the appellant failed to pay the appeal fee within the 2-month time limit of Art. 108. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 5:01 pm
Some time ago, we have seen T 783/09 where Board 3.3.04 stated:[5.6] However, given the term “can” in the citation from decision T 12/81, the absence of a direct and unambiguous disclosure for individualised subject-matter is not a mandatory consequence of its presentation as elements of lists. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 4:15 am
In case the CEO hasn't noticed, here are the hard facts: 1. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 9:55 pm
Nous avons pu voir à quoi ressemble ce réseau social et à première vue il paraît plutôt stable pour une version de ce type. [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am
It was established case law, in particular in decisions T 714/00 and T 1067/97, that an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a feature originally disclosed only in combination with other features was permissible on condition that the introduced feature was not inextricably linked to other features of the combination, the removal of the omitted features passed the essentiality test, and the overall disclosure justified the generalising isolation of the feature and its… [read post]
15 May 2018, 7:25 am
It was established case law, in particular in decisions T 714/00 and T 1067/97, that an amendment to a claim by the introduction of a feature originally disclosed only in combination with other features was permissible on condition that the introduced feature was not inextricably linked to other features of the combination, the removal of the omitted features passed the essentiality test, and the overall disclosure justified the generalising isolation of the feature and its… [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 10:54 pm
Proposed Transfer of Control of T-Mobile to AT&T. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 11:09 am
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL -- CNN's policy on debate questioners! [read post]
