Search for: "AT&T"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 881,601
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
For this reason, decision G 9/91 and the ensuing case law of the boards of appeal (such as T 240/04 which was referred to by the respondent) which define the extent to which the factual framework may be changed in appeal proceedings are not applicable to the present case. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
T 1271/05 [4.3]). [read post]
19 May 2010, 3:02 pm
[…][4] The patent is to be maintained as amended.The Board thus confirms the approach taken in T 653/02 and T 646/02.To read the whole decision (in German), click here. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
” (T 728/98 [3.1]).The latter applies to the feature “average particle size” in the present case […].[2.5] For these reasons claim 1 of the main request and of auxiliary request II is unclear.So when you cite a standard, it might be a good idea to actually have a look at it. ;-)To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:55 am
’s proposed acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 4:12 am
"Symbol Prediction Techniques for SVC",Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16 Q.6) 15th Meeting: Busan, KR, 16 - 22 April 2005,Retrieved from the internet:URL http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2005_04_Busan/JVT-O063.doc, online 16 April 2005,XP002417974.III. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 2:35 am
Hence, the appeal is to be dismissed.OrderFor these reasons it is decided that:The appeal is dismissed.This decision T 1332/12 (pdf) has European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T133212.20171011. [read post]
9 May 2010, 3:01 pm
T 1561/05 [2.1.3] and the cases cited there). [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 3:01 pm
A conscious choice of starting point, made in the knowledge of the respective benefits and drawbacks of the various prior art disclosures, not only determines the subject-matter serving as a starting point but also defines the framework for further development (T 439/92 [6.2.4]). [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm
Since it would not be credible that the patented GP laundry compositions provided a level of sanitisation superior to that of the prior art of departure, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the patent-in-suit represented just an optimization of the prior art, optimization that was rendered obvious by the combination of one or the other of the two examples of departure with document D9 or D11. [2.4.1] The Board notes however that the referred passage in T 1392/04 only relates to the credibility… [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
T 70/02, R 68(2) EPC 1973 does not require a decision to deal with all arguments in detail. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 3:31 pm
Concrete examples are found in T 85/82 [2], T 541/96 [8-9], and T 1538/05 [5]. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 3:01 pm
As a matter of fact, a comparative trial is also relevant if it shows that the alleged effect has its origin in the feature(s) distinguishing the invention from the closest prior art (see T 197/86 [6.3]). [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 6:01 pm
This exception, as such, has to be construed narrowly in connection with the interlocutory revision, and not as a broader entitlement for the first instance to decide whether an appeal is admissible (T 473/91, T 808/03, and Case Law of the Boards, 6th. edition 2010, VI.E.3.1, page 495). [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 7:18 am
(He doesn’t tell, and hopes that the reader doesn’t ask.) [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 11:01 am
It is noted that a communication from the ED, dated 18 February 2005, even states that “[t]he present application claims priority from US 60/200,580, filed on 28.04.2000 and from US 60/240,169, filed on 13.10.2000. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm
Whether or not a limiting feature is to be considered as added subject-matter within the meaning of A 123(2), can, of course, only be decided on the basis of the facts of each individual case (see G 1/93 [17]). [11] According to T 384/91 [5], an undisclosed added feature at least should not be considered as merely limiting the protection conferred by the granted patent without providing a technical contribution to the invention as claimed, if it interacts with the remaining features of the… [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 4:35 pm
In addition, as noted in decision T 168/99 [1] cited by the patent proprietor, withdrawal of subject-matter does not necessarily mean that it has formally been abandoned. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 4:35 pm
In addition, as noted in decision T 168/99 [1] cited by the patent proprietor, withdrawal of subject-matter does not necessarily mean that it has formally been abandoned. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
Some more decisions of the present kind, and we will be able to say that T 307/03 was a “one off” decision.To read the whole decision, click here. [read post]
