Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 141 - 160
of 53,756
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
In such a case, the claim does not meet the requirements of A 84, because A 84, first sentence, when read in conjunction with R 43(1) and (3), has to be interpreted as meaning not only that an independent claim must be comprehensible from a technical point of view but also that it must clearly define the subject-matter of the invention, that is to say indicate all the essential features thereof (see T 32/82). [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:08 am
PEJMAN YOUSEFZADEH on the new “deficits don’t matter” crowd. [read post]
2 May 2011, 8:38 pm
NANCY PELOSI, 2006: KILLING OSAMA DOESN’T MATTER. [read post]
17 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In the decision under appeal it was held that it does, because the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot claim priority from the US application No. 835,799 […]. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 7:17 am
The taking into account of this argument necessarily leads to the consideration of the applicant's argumentation concerning the inventive step of the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 12:00 pm
According to the established case law developed in relation to A 96(2) EPC 1973 and also applicable, as far as the issues raised by the appellant are concerned, to A 94(3), the expression “as often as necessary” in this article indicates that the ED has a discretion which has to be exercised objectively in the light of the circumstances of the case (see for instance decisions T 162/82 [12], T 300/89 [9.1], and T 726/04 [7]). [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, [the opponent] has not provided reasons why it found the submissions complex. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 5:59 pm
David Rivera’s (R-FL-25) shtick isn’t playing well in Washington DC. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 12:08 pm
Charlotte Personal Injury Attorney Matthew R. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm
On January 7, 2005, the Examining Division (ED) decided to refuse the European application under consideration because it considered that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked an inventive step. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
This part is interesting because it shows the type of evidence gathered in witness hearings and what the Board makes of it.Oral disclosureRequest not to hear the witnesses Dr Wallukat and Dr Kunze[30] By an interlocutory decision in accordance with A 117 and R 117 the board decided that it was necessary to hear Dr Wallukat and Dr Kunze as witnesses.[31] The witnesses were summoned in accordance with R 118. [read post]
21 May 2011, 5:12 am
ORBITZ SNUBS MEDIA MATTERS: Well, Media Matters doesn’t drive any traffic, as far as I can tell. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
It must exercise that discretion having regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case. [2.4] The board considers that this view is consistent with the view taken in previous decisions in the different context of inter partes cases (see, for instance, R 10/09 [3.2]; T 144/09 [1.14] and R 11/11 [9], which rejected the petition for review of T 144/09 as clearly unallowable; and T 1007/05 [3]). [2.5] The board is aware that amended claims… [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
The definition of the catalyst is found in page 4, lines 5 t 6 of the original description: “The catalyst of the process according to the invention contains a support, platinum and at least one further element. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:01 pm
” (R 29(3) EPC 1973)Such a claim is, as a rule, referred to as independent claim. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 9:51 am
If words hurt, or even if they simply have the potential to hurt, it doesn’t matter what is “in your heart. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 2:35 am
Notice of opposition to the patent had been filed by the Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte e.V. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:01 pm
The letter ends with the assertion that “not permitting any further written submissions by the applicant” constituted a “procedural violation”. [2.2] In its communication dated 10 September 2010, the ED argued that the amendments of the ED were “a direct and unavoidable consequence of what has been ordered by the BoA (decision T 480/06, chapter 8)” […]. [2.3] The appealed decision (section 7) argues that: “the description ... contains… [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
It does not matter in what form the subject of the appeal is identified, as long as it is clear. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 11:41 am
If the facts of this matter warrant such a negligent security claim, it would not only be an avenue of justice for the victim, but would also demand that the Booker T. [read post]
