Search for: "CF-3"
Results 1921 - 1940
of 2,385
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
Cf. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 6:38 am
Id. at 1227; cf. 29 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 2:56 pm
”[3] Finally, and most importantly, the structural argument also ignores the risk that restricting the board’s authority in the tender offer context will undermine the board’s authority in other contexts. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 2:02 pm
(cf. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:33 am
Cf. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
.*** Translated from the German ***[3] The appellants have not given any reason why one or both appeal fees should be reimbursed. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 4:19 am
Cf. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
It follows that document D1 takes away the novelty under A 54(3) of the subject-matter of claim 1. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:19 pm
The Board further concluded that at least the following features of claim 1 are not disclosed in D2 (WO 97/45814 A), which was considered the closest prior art: a subscriber service interface for outputting a corresponding charging or realization service request message to said service control unit to provide a corresponding financial transaction service when an item of said service menu is selected (cf feature b); a transaction service interface (150) connecting said service control… [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 3:28 pm
Lazare Kaplan International owns patents claiming laser microinscribing of gemstones. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 2:42 pm
3. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 10:12 am
[Original draft 9/3/2008. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
Thus, in T 135/96 [3], ignoring documents (and arguments) relevant to inventive step was found to violate the party’s right to be heard. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 5:58 pm
Cf. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 11:01 am
Thus, the first criterion set out in decision T 371/88 does not apply to the present case. [4] Therefore, the main request is considered to contravene the requirements of A 123(3). [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
The main request and the first and second auxiliary requests on file having been found to contravene A 123(3), A 84 and A 123(2), respectively, the Board has to deal with the request to adjourn the oral proceedings (OPs) in order to give the patent proprietor the possibility of drafting and submitting a further auxiliary request. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 3:01 pm
The amended set of claims of the main request is therefore also considered to meet the requirements of A 123(2) and A 123(3). [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 7:31 am
3. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 5:52 pm
Barnett, 3 Car. [read post]
12 Dec 2010, 2:51 pm
" In a first examination stage, the Board determined that the claimed method fails the machine-or-transformation test since, allegedly, it neither is limited to a particular machine (cf. observations 1, 2), nor do the method steps of claim 1 transform a particular article into a different state or thing (cf. observation 3). [read post]
