Search for: "T B.1."
Results 41 - 60
of 29,963
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2020, 1:00 am
In the grounds of appeal of 28 March 2019, the applicant referred to T 1063/18 which decided that Rule 28(2) is in conflict with Art.53(b) as interpreted by the Enlarged Board in G 2/12 and G 2/13 and that the refusal in that case based on Rule 28(2) should be set aside. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 10:07 am
§ 2252A(b)(1) and (b)(2) — which aren’t unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The opposition was based on Article l00(a) together with 52(1), 54(1) and 56 EPC and Articles 100(b) and (c) EPC. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 6:16 am
The opposition was based on Article l00(a) together with 52(1), 54(1) and 56 EPC and Articles 100(b) and (c) EPC. [read post]
21 Jul 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the allowed request read:A refrigerant composition which comprises: (a) 46% by weight based on the weight of the composition of pentafluoroethane, (b) 50% by weight based on the weight of the composition of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane and (c) 4% by weight based on the weight of the composition of n-butane.Upon remittal, the patent proprietor filed two sets of amended pages of the description as a main request and an auxiliary request, respectively. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
In substance, D2 discloses the examples A, B and C. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 4:03 pm
[…] Claim 1, in addition to claim 1 as granted, contains a disclaimer in its section b) wherein it is "provided that the cells are not human embryonic stem cells". [read post]
27 Aug 2013, 5:01 pm
As present claim 1 is “open”, i.e. may contain components other than (a), (b), and (c), it is irrelevant what the respective examples of document D2 may contain in addition to that. [2.4] Thus document D2 discloses all the features of claims 1 and 9 of the main request. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 11:12 pm
If you aren't one of the first three, I can still get you 50% off the reg fees. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 9:23 pm
Michael B. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 1:00 am
EP claims A and D14 claims B. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
Therefore, the intrinsically non-technical, mathematical method of decryption cannot derive a technical character from the problem solved (T 1227/05 [3.1]). [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 on file in this examination appeal read:1. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 10:00 pm
The core decision where this follows from is this decision, T 1329/04. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 2:10 am
Roll Call, CEOs Shouldn’t Use Corporate Treasury as Personal Political Piggy Bank, by Donal B. [read post]
25 Nov 2011, 4:42 pm
When an Section 1(b) intent-to-use trademark application receives a Notice of Allowance, the applicant has six months to file an acceptable statement of use to prove that the applied-for mark is being used in commerce. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 2:41 am
The table of parts of this drawing list a "Cone" designated "AJ-BT-8125 A-1/HA3". [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
Does the EPC confer jurisdiction on the EPO to determine whether a party validly claims to be a successor in title as referred to in Article 87(1)(b) EPC? [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 5:01 pm
However, the decisive point in this context is that these letters were sent by the intervener to [the patent proprietor] and not vice versa and, hence, cannot qualify as a request of a patent proprietor to an assumed infringer within the meaning of A 105(1)(b). [read post]
26 May 2013, 5:01 pm
Hence, the ground of opposition under A 100(b) prejudices the maintenance of the patent as granted. [read post]
