Search for: "Matter of DP"
Results 161 - 180
of 635
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2018, 3:22 am
The Board is not called upon to decide whether the Examining Division was or was not correct in this matter, but merely to decide whether the Examining Division arrived at this conclusion in a reasonable way.6.3 The Board can accept that the Examining Division faced the difficulty that the Guidelines do not define what "sufficiently substantiated" means in the case of illness. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 4:29 am
This appeal is against the decision of the examining division dated 9 April 2013 refusing European patent application No. 08290801.3, with publication number EP 2159926 A.The refusal was based on the ground inter alia that the subject-matter of claim 1 of a main request and claim 1 of an auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step.II. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 4:20 pm
Why does any of this matter? [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 9:46 am
(c) For those reasons, granted claim 1 was anticipated by the public prior use Rigidex®P450xHP60.Inventive step(d) Contrary to the opposition division's view, D6 was a suitable starting point for the assessment of the inventive step.The subject-matter of granted claim 1 differed from example 11 of D6 only in that it exhibited a higher Mz(XCS). [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 9:46 am
(c) For those reasons, granted claim 1 was anticipated by the public prior use Rigidex®P450xHP60.Inventive step(d) Contrary to the opposition division's view, D6 was a suitable starting point for the assessment of the inventive step.The subject-matter of granted claim 1 differed from example 11 of D6 only in that it exhibited a higher Mz(XCS). [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 12:27 am
The opposition division objected that this was added matter since the amendment failed to include a 'reduced pressure interface' which was shown together with the former interface. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 7:51 am
Does it matter? [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 7:11 am
Evidence submitted by a patent applicant or proprietor to prove a technical effect relied upon for acknowledgement of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter may not be disregarded solely on the ground that such evidence, on which the effect rests, had not been public before the filing date of the patent in suit and was filed after that date.2. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 12:56 pm
Shari is the author of the new book ‘Motherhood is the New MBA”, available at: http://www.amazon.com/Motherhood-New-MBA-Parenting-Skills/dp/0312544316/ref=sr_1_1? [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:03 am
If the debate on a particular topic had been closed without announcement of a decision on the matter, the board has discretion over whether or not it re-opens the debate and over the extent to which it does so (see Reasons, point 3.1).3. [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:27 am
In preparation therefor, the Board issued a communication including its preliminary opinion on salient issues, expressing inter alia that the claimed subject-matter appeared to be sufficiently disclosed and novel.VII. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 9:23 am
It will surely reopen the DP debate when the 3-judge bench looks at it. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 10:00 am
For some time, there has been widespread reporting of half-truths in the news media, old and new, on the Cameron Todd Willingham matter. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 7:22 am
The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:17 pm
Even when combining the teaching of D14 with the package of D9 the skilled person would not arrive at the claimed subject-matter.First auxiliary requestInventive step should be recognised for the subject-matter of claim 1 of the first auxiliary request. [read post]
2 Feb 2011, 11:38 am
On February 2, 2011, discovery and other pre-trial matters were heard at the Yorktown Courthouse in the medical malpractice case of Marshall v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 11:16 am
Must be able to pass a background check and DPS fingerprint clearance. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 12:12 pm
The matter went to trial and was heard on the 29th June 2015 by Deputy District Judge McLaughlin where it was accepted by both parties that the prescribed information has not been served and that the Defendant had not accepted the return of the deposit through the DPS. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 12:48 pm
Unfortunately, over half of all states in the U.S. do not specify inspection requirements and leave the matter up to the owner of the vehicle. [read post]
2 Feb 2021, 1:37 am
This is because the opposition division erred in finding that the subject-matter of claims 1 and 9 of the granted patent lacked novelty (see point 4.3 above). [read post]
