Search for: "MATTER OF T A AND T R A"
Results 1 - 20
of 53,745
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 604/01, the board held that objections under A 123(2) and (3) which the opponent raised during the opposition proceedings but did not further explain until OPs could not be excluded under R 71a(1) EPC 1973 because these objections were a matter of argument. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 9:37 am
Senior Advocate of the SCI, T R Adhyarujina has recently written (an abridged form of his speech at the Bombay High Court) in the Hindu about the disturbing trends in judicial activism by the Supreme Court of India. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
T 242/05 [2.1-3]). [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 9:37 am
Senior Advocate of the SCI, T R Adhyarujina has recently written (an abridged form of his speech at the Bombay High Court) in the Hindu about the disturbing trends in judicial activism by the Supreme Court of India. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 5:01 pm
T 861/93 [5-6] and T 28/93 [4.1]). [read post]
7 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Reasoning as in T 708/00, an objection under R 137(5) should not have been made. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:01 pm
” (emphasis added by the board).[2.2.4] It follows from this that the appeal proceedings are confined to the subject-matter of the first instance proceedings and therefore that the statement of grounds of appeal should at least discuss this subject-matter. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 8:52 am
R (T & Anor) v SSHD & Anor, heard 9 – 10 December 2013. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
Thereby, said statement gave detailed reasons why the decision under appeal should be set aside and indicated the facts and evidence in support of the respective arguments.R 99(2) does not exclude that such evidence is submitted for the first time in appeal proceedings nor does it require that this evidence is admitted into the proceedings (see T 389/95 [1,3]).Therefore, the fact that the [opponent] relied inter alia on documents D6 to D13 in its statement setting out the grounds for appeal… [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 4:24 am
T 621/12, Reasons, point 2). [read post]
29 Aug 2010, 3:01 pm
The question arises as to whether the behaviour of the ED in the proceedings up to refusal deprived the applicant of the right to be heard (A 113(1)), and whether the decision was sufficiently reasoned (R 68(2)). [4.3] Decision T 939/92 referred to by the appellant in the statement of grounds of appeal (followed for instance in T 1242/04 [9.2]) sets out that A 54(2) does not limit the state of the art to written disclosure in specific documents. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 5:01 pm
In T 1981/12 [catchword, point 1] the Board considered, in somewhat similar circumstances, that the correct basis for the refusal of the application was that the applicant was not entitled to pursue an application based on subject matter not searched by the EPO. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am
Gonzales and R. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 1:32 am
Background Last week the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
1 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, the board concludes that the requirements of R 99(1)(a) are met and thereby follows the jurisprudence established in decisions T 920/97 [1], T 475/07 [1.1] and T 1519/08 [2.1]). [2.2.3] Moreover, the board does not agree that the appeal proceedings should be stayed in view of decision T 445/08, pending as referral G 1/12. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
Prokop, who in 2008 was working for Kennametal Technologies and involved in matters relating to inventions in the Kennametal group. [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 8:00 am
IT DOESN'T MATTER, except when it does: "Race doesn't matter," the crowd chanted after Sen. [read post]
4 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
The ED denied the novelty of the subject-matter of claim 1 over the disclosure in document D1, a document relevant under A 54(3). [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 11:04 am
No, it is a matter of the individual, opportunity and the belief that they won't be caught that leads to corruption. [read post]
20 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
In decision T 1242/04 [8.3] the Board has explained that R 45 relates only to the practicability of a search and not to the potential relevance of its results in subsequent substantive examination. [read post]
