Search for: "Matter of T S B"
Results 141 - 160
of 19,484
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2017, 10:00 pm
The core decision where this follows from is this decision, T 1329/04. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 10:31 am
The Federal Circuit went on to explain: [T]he claims recite specific treatment steps, not just the correlations themselves. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 11:53 am
Certainly as to foreign citizens not located within the United States, the answer is no (there is a Rule 30(b)(6) exception but that didn’t apply to these witnesses). [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:43 am
The subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty in view of D1. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 12:55 pm
All of that was legal, and that’s why we needed Prop B. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 8:14 am
G 1/03 and G 2/10 relate to different cases, so cannot prima facie be considered as somehow conflicting, but Board 3.3.09 made the currently pending referral G 1/16 while handling appeal T 0437/14 asking a.o. whether the G 2/10 decision effects how some aspects of G 1/03 shall be interpreted. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 6:42 am
The court denied B&B’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 1:25 pm
” Similarly, after his son told a teacher that the B-SHOC event would not be fun for him because he is an atheist, the teacher instructed, “I wouldn’t brag about that. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 6:56 am
Sounds reasonable doesn't it? [read post]
10 Dec 2023, 1:54 pm
§ 9003(b). [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 1:38 pm
This is good news because, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon stated, there is “no Plan B. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 10:23 am
Any amendment to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal or reply may be admitted and considered at the Board's discretion (Article 13(1) RPBA).5.3 In the present case, prior to the oral proceedings before the Board, the Respondent had never raised any objection under Article 56 EPC to the subject-matter of the present main request, either before the Opposition Division or before the Board, said subject-matter being an embodiment of… [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
As a matter of fact, A 84 (EPC 1973) together with R 29 (EPC 1973) requires a claim to give all the essential features that are necessary for defining the invention.This requirements has also been affirmed in decision G 1/07 [4.2.2; 3.3.1 – should read 4.3.1]. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The respondent's arguments are as follows:The process for producing oxygen disclosed in D6 is suitable to fuel an integrated gasifier combined cycle system, thus the process disclosed in D6 is novelty destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The respondent's arguments are as follows:The process for producing oxygen disclosed in D6 is suitable to fuel an integrated gasifier combined cycle system, thus the process disclosed in D6 is novelty destroying for the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 11:10 am
Despite the agency's efforts to assist the respondent father to improve his deficient parenting skills and to remediate his propensity for domestic violence, the father's aggressive and threatening behavior continued unabated (see Matter of Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 841-842 [1986]; see also Matter of Jennifer R., 29 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006]; Matter of Ajuwon H., 18 AD3d 752 [2005]). [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 9:48 am
It’s wrong and we won’t be bullied. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 9:05 pm
CDR B: The government would not dispute that matter, Your Honor. [read post]
1 Dec 2012, 5:36 am
[T]his section puts the burden of precise claim drafting squarely on the applicant. [read post]
