Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 881,601
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
The board observes that the [patent proprietor’s] representative became aware of the fact that he was summoned to OPs on three consecutive days in December (date of acknowledgement of receipt of the third summons in the appeal T 1902/09 is 20 December 2012). [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 4:01 pm
T 488/94, T 169/96 and T 345/98). [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
The opponent cited T 176/84 to support its view that the skilled person would nevertheless consult these documents. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 11:01 am
(my emphasis) There was agreement on the fact that the subject-matter of this claim was not explicitly disclosed in the application as filed, but the applicant pointed out that the disclosure was implicit.The Board won’t have it:[7] The appellant does not contest the absence of an explicit disclosure of the subject-matter of claim 1 […] in the application as filed, but its argumentation relies on an implicit disclosure of this subject-matter which, in the appellant’s… [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
This position was supported by decisions T 81/87 and T 77/97. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
Rather, the post-published documents can be viewed as being a mere confirmation of the technical effect already announced (albeit at a theoretical level) in the application as filed. [21] The board observes that such a dichotomy arose between, on the one hand, the disclosure in the patent application underlying decision T 1329/04 (lack of the seven cystein residues with their peculiar spacing required for a protein (in that case, GDF-9) to belong to the TGF-beta superfamily – see… [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
T 727/00 [1.1.4], T 686/99 [4.3]).Auxiliary request 1[2.2] The reasons under [2.1] also apply to claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 because this claim contains all the features of the main request that are relevant for the above argumentation […].Auxiliary request 2[2.3.1] In claim 1 of auxiliary request 2 the insecticide was further limited to the compound imidacloprid […]. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The author notes that the case law relied upon, T 609/02, dealt with Swiss-type claims. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 3:01 pm
T 1120/00 [15]). [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 3:01 pm
In the Board’s view, such deletions must be considered admissible in accordance with the case law of the boards of appeal (see decision T 393/91 [2.2]). [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 5:01 pm
G 2/04 [3.2.5], and T 1178/04 [27, 31, 34]). [read post]
7 May 2018, 5:33 pm
Contact Jim Butler jbutler@jmbm.com +310.201.3526 Jeffrey T. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 3:08 pm
If – as in decision T 621/98 cited by the appellant – the proprietor of the patent is the same person as the inventor (see T 621/98 [1-2]), then he is a party to the proceedings and has the right to give his view on different issues. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal the standard of disclosure for this requirement is that it must be possible to reproduce the invention on the basis of the original application documents without any inventive effort and undue burden, whereby the skilled person may use his common general knowledge to supplement the information contained in the application, textbooks and general technical literature forming part of the common general knowledge (see e.g. decisions T… [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
This wording expressly excludes the value of 50%.[15.1.2] Decision T 666/89 concerns situations of “selection” and “overlapping” of numerical ranges. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
Claim 1 is directed at a system, independent claim 9 to a method for playing the game, while further independent claim 17 defines the game unit for use in the claimed system. [2.2] The subject-matter of these claims undoubtedly has technical character following the generally accepted approach of T 931/95 and T 258/03. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
[… I]t is disclosed that a network client enforces the imprinting of an ID on the requested data before it is made available to the user. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 2:17 am
The examining division held that the claims relating, on the one hand, to a needle assembly and, on the other hand, to a method of making a needle assembly were not linked by the same special technical features and this raised a non-unity objection. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:41 pm
Department of Justice Publishes White Paper on the Cloud Ac t appeared first on IELR Blog. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:41 pm
Department of Justice Publishes White Paper on the Cloud Ac t appeared first on IELR Blog. [read post]
