Search for: "MATTER OF T J B"
Results 161 - 180
of 3,054
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2024, 6:00 am
CHAMBERS LARA J. [read post]
13 May 2024, 6:00 am
CHAMBERS LARA J. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
In its decision J 9/84 [4] the Legal Board of appeal explained that the main purpose of R 31 EPC [1973] was “to induce the applicant to limit the protection sought to a certain number of claims, in the first instance for the purposes of the European search”. [read post]
19 Oct 2012, 7:54 am
By Patrick J. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 5:01 pm
(b) One of the purposes of file inspection is to enable the public to obtain information about the patent, being information to which it is entitled in return for the exclusive monopoly rights which the patent confers (indeed, this is the “paramount” purpose of file inspection according to the Board in T 1401/05 [5]).[3.3] Examples where file inspection would not have served the purpose of informing the public about the patent are to be found in the decisions T… [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 4:01 pm
It is therefore the applicant who is entitled to file requests in grant proceedings before the EPO (see for example A 93(1)(b) (request for early publication), R 70(1) (request for examination) and R 71(4) (request for amendments)). [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 1:38 pm
That’s really what matters the most to me. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 5:00 am
b. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 8:18 pm
For those reasons, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for lack of eligible subject matter will be the exception, not the rule. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 5:01 pm
There was one example, but it was not suited to show that the claimed subject-matter was enabled (see point [7] of the reasons), i.e. an example was in principle absent. [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:12 am
T. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 9:13 am
Tryn T. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 8:41 am
J., and THOMAS, J., joined. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 5:30 pm
Delaney and Fallyn B. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
It does not matter in what form the subject of the appeal is identified, as long as it is clear. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 2:38 pm
SEC (1985) (White, J., concurring). [read post]
22 Oct 2020, 8:11 am
“O’Melveny Can’t Keep $9M From Bankrupt Co., 9th Circ. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 11:25 pm
Not content to leave matters to the CJEU, Arnold J expressed his own view of what “more” is required for a product to be protected within the meaning of Art 3(a): “What more is required? [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 12:17 pm
Didn’t matter how original symbols/words were or what other choices were possible at the time of creation. [read post]
9 Sep 2018, 5:29 am
J..E..T..S...Jets Jets Jets...will...NOT be your 2019 Super Bowl Champion. [read post]
