Search for: "Downloader 93"
Results 161 - 180
of 433
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
”The same wording was used in decisions G 4/93 [5] and G 1/99 [6.1].It is thus clear that the appeal proceedings aim at contesting a decision.[2.2.3] In decision G 1/99 [6.1] the EBA further pointed out that: “Indeed, issues outside the subject-matter of the decision under appeal are not part of the appeal. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
The board takes this as meaning that the appellant accepts the board’s reasoning.[3.5] For this reason the board concludes that only [INC1] has been validly incorporated by reference and the subject-matter of claim 1 of all requests, for the reasons given above, only has the filing date of the present application as its effective date, with [INC1] being prior art relevant to claim 1.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 2:09 pm
By those numbers, at least 93% of people who use Viper are, most likely, completely unaware of how their essays are being used. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
As a consequence, the Board does not agree with the conclusions of the ED regarding the formulation of the technical problem and thus allows the definition given under point [2.3] above.The Board finally issued an order to grant a patent.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be found here. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 8:47 am
What is sometimes known as the Google Books case just involves the Library Project.Judge Denny ChinBackgroundSince 2004 Google has scanned more than 20 million books in their entirety [with approximately 93% of books being non-fiction, and the great majority of works being out-of-commerce], and delivered digital copies to participating libraries [the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and a number of university libraries can download a digital copy of each… [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 10:09 am
Contraception 2013; 87: 93–100. 3. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal, an ED has discretion to allow amendments until issue of a decision to grant (see G 7/93 [2.2-3]).After the first amendment, filed with letter of 15 May 2006, the appellant had another two opportunities to file further amendments, with letters of 2 January 2009 and 31 October 2011, the latter in time to comply with the ultimate date set for the OPs on 30 November 2011. [read post]
20 Oct 2013, 8:45 pm
Hansmeier and Mark Lutz the principal amount of $21,393.60, with costs and attorney’s fees trebled pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93(A) §9 for a total judgment of $64,180.80 with interest as provided by law. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
This is only logical, firstly in order to avoid having two different instances competent simultaneously, and possibly reaching diverging conclusions, and because the proprietor can limit or even request the revocation of its patent during opposition proceedings.Thus, A 105a(2) does not prevent the proprietor from filing a request for revocation during opposition proceedings, nor does it prevent the OD from dealing with such requests.Finally, limitation or revocation proceedings are specific… [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
This is a noteworthy decision on search-related matters.The application under consideration was filed as a PCT application with the USPTO in 2005. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
T 828/93 [2] and T 922/08 [2.1]. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm
However it was submitted that in the present case the purpose of the method, namely producing bovine milk having a reduced level of saturated fatty acids relative to the level of unsaturated fatty acids, was also a technical feature to be taken into account in the assessment of the novelty of claim 1.[7] In a first line of argumentation the appellant relied on decision T 848/93 and submitted that it was established case law that a method claim was limited by the purpose of the method.[8]… [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 9/92 [12] and G 4/93 [1]). [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
This is an examination appeal.*** Translation of the German original ***The Board first dealt with the main request, claim 1 of which read:Cosmetic preparation comprising a combination of(a) a copolymer based on the monomers N-vinylpyrrolidon (VP), N-vinylimidazole (VI), methacrylamide (MAM) and quaternised N-vinylimidazole (QVI);(b) at least one non-ionic polymer;(c) cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (cetrimonium chloride; CAS 112-02-7).[2.1] The Examining Division (ED) noted in the impugned decision… [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Insofar as the appellant contests the way in which the LD has exercised its discretion when taking the impugned decision, the case law of the Boards of appeal, which has in principle been confirmed by the Enlarged Board of appeal (G 7/93), has established that it is not the function of a Board of appeal to review afresh the factual situation of the case as if it were in the place of the organ of the administrative instance which has taken the impugned decision, in order to decide whether or… [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 986/93 [2.4] and T 620/08 [3.4]). [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Thus the Board is of the opinion that the purpose for which ethanol is added in step (b) of the process according to claim 1 cannot constitute a feature that establishes novelty.[15] The [patent proprietor] points out that according to decision T 848/93 the use feature in step (b) of claim 1 should indeed be considered as a functional feature of the process that could establish novelty.[16] In decision T 848/93 the claim under consideration was directed at a process for remelting… [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Arguments have to be considered, whenever they were brought forward in first-instance proceedings (see decisions T 92/92, T 604/01, T 861/93 and T 131/01. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
T 836/01 and T 1642/06, on claims relating to second or further medical uses of a known substance and which acknowledged novelty in the case at issue based on the differentiation of a direct and indirect effect.[12] In view of the foregoing, the board is satisfied that the subject-matter of claim 1 at issue fulfils the requirements of A 54(1) and A 54(3) vis-à-vis the disclosure in document D1.Should you wish to download the whole decision, just click here.The file wrapper can be… [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Both the opponent and the company affiliated to it were interested in presenting the object disputed in T 292/93 to potential customers. [read post]
