Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1561 - 1580
of 881,583
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
Contrary to the opinion of the appellant, that this decision is “vague” in defining the level or reference for a disclosure to be sufficient, the Board finds that the requirements summarised in decision T 541/96 [6.2] are quite unambiguous. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 12:34 am
Just to remind you, here are the 6 T's: 1 - Type of IP 2 - Time (until expiry) 3 - Territories (in which IP is held/registered) 4 - Terminated (ie the status of the IP) 5 - Technical Scope of the monopoly 6 - True monopoly? [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
Other decisions[1.4] Reference was made on behalf of the [opponents] to decisions T 1443/05, T 118/99, T 136/01 and T 494/03. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 10:00 am
That wasn't all though.... [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 2:34 pm
The AT&T and T-Mobile USA combination would have offered an interim solution to this spectrum shortage. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 5:04 pm
This means that if there is any reasonable doubt as to what may or may not be the result of carrying out the literal disclosure and instructions of a prior art document, i.e. if there remains a "grey area" then the case of anticipation based on that document must fail (see T 793/93 [2.1]). [4.2.5]To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 1:11 pm
(T 988/02 [3.3.1]). [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 11:01 am
The skilled person may not be the brightest person in the world (you might remember that T 60/89 [2.2.4] had found that “the skilled person in the field of genetic engineering in 1978 [was] not to be defined as a Nobel Prize laureate, even if a number of scientists working in this field at that time were actually awarded the Nobel Prize”), but he/she is not a dummy either. [2] The [opponent] argued that “all disclosure in the patent specification relating to the claimed… [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 3:02 pm
[III] […] Since the admissibility of the opposition has been decided with res judicata effect in decision T 1284/01, the first of the proposed questions is no longer relevant to the present case. [6.3] With regard to the second question, whether or not the appellant (proprietor) is aware of the true identity of the opponent (i.e. the person behind the straw man), the appellant (proprietor) is guaranteed a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the form… [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 6:01 pm
T 227/88 [3]; T 922/94 [2.2]), the Board nevertheless considers that this objection could most certainly have been filed at an earlier stage of the proceedings. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As stated explicitly in T 774/97 [2], A 113 requires that a decision should only be made on grounds on which the parties have had an opportunity to comment. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 3:03 pm
[Therefore], the circumstances of the present case are not comparable with those underlying T 734/91. [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
The question arises as to whether the behaviour of the ED in the proceedings up to refusal deprived the applicant of the right to be heard (A 113(1)), and whether the decision was sufficiently reasoned (R 68(2)). [4.3] Decision T 939/92 referred to by the appellant in the statement of grounds of appeal (followed for instance in T 1242/04 [9.2]) sets out that A 54(2) does not limit the state of the art to written disclosure in specific documents. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm
” In decision T 1067/97 [2.1.3] the board stated: “According to established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, if a claim is to be restricted to a preferred embodiment, it is normally not admissible under A 123(2) to extract isolated features from a set of features which have originally been disclosed in combination for that embodiment. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm
T 1408/04) with respect to the original disclosure. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
T 1170/05). [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
The right to be heard in OPs subsists so long as proceedings are pending before the EPO (T 556/95 [4.4], T 598/88 [3]). [read post]
23 May 2011, 3:01 pm
T 95/83). [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
The Boards are not obliged to do so, and indeed they sometimes do not, as decision T 1903/06 shows. [read post]
24 May 2012, 5:01 pm
This is an appeal against the revocation of the patent under consideration by the Opposition Division (OD).Claim 1 of the main request before the Board was identical to claim 1 as granted and read:1. [read post]
