Search for: "MATTER OF T A G"
Results 161 - 180
of 5,909
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2019, 12:35 pm
Report Highlights First, the OIG determined that the ASMPP’s structure didn’t properly ensure that unqualified mentors weren’t receiving program benefits. [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:47 am
Both of these questions were relevant in the referring decision in G 2/21, T 0116/18. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 10:25 am
By Steven G. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 12:10 pm
Edward T. [read post]
8 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
G 3/98 [1]). [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 5:31 am
The claims presently on file differ from the claims not allowed in T 1676/11, for example, in that the claims refused under T 1676/11 included product claims whereas the requests presently on file contain only process claims, the subject-matter of said process claims differing substantially from the process claims decided upon in T 1676/11. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
G 2/10, as I understand it, states that under more general conditions, the only thing that matters is that what is claimed in the end complies with A 123(2). [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 9:59 pm
§ 102(g), "[t]o establish prior invention, the party asserting it must prove that it appreciated what it had made. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
It added the remark that in view of the same facts and reasons the subject-matter of the patent did not involve an inventive step.The Opposition Division (OD) considered the ground for opposition that the claims lacked inventive step not to have been substantiated and, therefore, did not introduce it into the proceedings.It has to be examined whether the decision of the OD not to introduce the fresh ground for opposition [that the claims lacked] inventive step into the proceedings was… [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 4:42 am
Relying inter alia on T 990/96, the Examining Division argued that the disclosure of amorphous Lercanidipine Hydrochloride ("LH") and its manufacture in prior art document D1 already had made available this compound to the public in the sense of Article 54 EPC in all desired grades of purity, and the claimed degree of purity could therefore not render the claims novel.Departing from T 990/96 and subsequent cases… [read post]
27 Nov 2023, 11:15 am
T 0258/21, IPKat). [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 7:25 pm
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Jamel G. [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Among other things, this means that a disclaimer is not allowable if the necessary limitation can be expressed in simpler terms in positive, originally disclosed features in accordance with R 43(1), first sentence (see G 1/03 [3, penultimate paragraph]). [read post]
2 May 2013, 5:01 pm
This disclosure cannot therefore per se provide a basis for extracting individual features, such as the shaft, from claim 8 for combination with the subject-matter in claim 11. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 10:28 am
German also likes abbreviations, and this word has one: ReÜAÜG. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 8:55 am
"JUDI'S JOB WITH PUP-KILLER FIRM" I continue to believe that the stuff that mattered before 9/11 matters much much less in 2007-2008. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions G 9/92 [12] and G 4/93 [1]). [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 7:37 am
Dep't of Transp., No. 16-739, Justice Neil M. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 4:42 am
In the Matter of Moses G. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 2:01 am
However, the TBA reasoned that such an outcome would not be in line with the case law of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) decisions on novelty G 2/88 (Friction reducing additive) and G 2/10 (Disclaimer/SCRIPPS).Purity can be importantParticularly, the TBA observed that following the reasoning of G 2/10, "in order to conclude a lack of novelty, there must be at least an implicit disclosure in the state of the art of the subject-matter falling within the… [read post]
