Search for: "Laurent Teyssèdre"
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
The present decision is in no way spectacular but it presents in a very pedagogical manner how inventive step is nowadays assessed by the Boards in the chemical realm:Novelty of the subject-matter having been acknowledged, the assessment of inventive step begins with the search for the closest prior art.The closest prior art[4.1] The closest state of the art is normally a prior art document disclosing subject-matter with the same objectives as the claimed invention and having the most relevant… [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 3:01 pm
NB: Laurent Teyssèdre was probably the first to report this decision; you can find his post here. [read post]
26 Jun 2010, 11:01 am
NB: This decision is also commented on Laurent Teyssèdre’s blog. [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 3:01 pm
This decision deals with the patentability of meta-methods used for software creation.** Translation from the German **[2] The lack of inventive step already results from actual claim 1, which concerns a method for creating software programs by means of an electronic data processing system. [read post]
22 May 2010, 11:00 am
Does the change of wording between R 64 EPC 1973 and R 99 EPC 2000 have an impact on how a notice of appeal and/or a statement of grounds of appeal has to be drafted? [read post]
12 May 2010, 3:01 pm
There are farewell gifts you’d rather not receive. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
NB: This decision has also been commented by Laurent Teyssèdre on his blog. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 3:01 pm
To read the whole decision, click here.NB: This decision has already been reported on Laurent Teyssèdre’s blog. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 3:02 pm
To read the whole decision, click here.NB: This decision has also been commented by Laurent Teyssèdre. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 4:03 pm
The present decision is a sad example of how a notice of appeal should not be written. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 11:01 am
As far as I can see, the race was won by Laurent Teyssèdre (here), followed by IPKat David Pearce (here). [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 3:02 pm
A translation will be published in the Official Journal of the EPO.NB: Once again my fellow bloggers Laurent Teyssèdre and Mark Schweizer have been faster than lightning in reporting this decision. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 3:19 pm
I owe the knowledge of this decision to Laurent Teyssèdre, who has discussed it on his blog (in French). [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 10:26 am
This decision has already been commented (in French) by Laurent Teyssèdre on his blog. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 3:27 pm
I owe the knowledge of this decision, which had escaped my scrutiny, to Laurent Teyssèdre, who has discussed the various admissibility issues addressed by the Board in a recent post on his blog. [read post]
