Search for: "T. B.1."
Results 81 - 100
of 29,968
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jul 2011, 5:23 am
Minnesota Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 11:28 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) provides that A statement is not hearsay if... [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 4:13 pm
” Anyway, B&B wasn’t entitled to a remedy. [read post]
16 May 2011, 2:26 am
t? [read post]
15 Nov 2012, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 as granted read :1. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 5:01 pm
Claim 1 of the main request before the Board read:An apparatus (1) for a sorting system comprising an activating member (2), a fastening bracket (3), and a discharge arm (4) which at an end part (5) is pivotally connected with the fastening bracket (3) at a side (6) of a conveyor (7), where said discharge arm (4) by means of said activating member (2) is adapted for being swung between a passive position (9) approximately parallel to said side (6) of the conveyor (7) and a number… [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 1:22 pm
B&B argued that the 2000 verdict wasn’t a final adverse decision. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The present claim is comparable to the device claims of the auxiliary request in decision T 775/97 [3.1] which were found not to fall under the exclusion clause of A 52(4) EPC 1973.The reasoning of T 82/93 [1.5-5] is not applicable to the present situation either. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 1:23 pm
Don’t Know 3. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 1:15 am
Pursuant to Rule 99 EPC the notice of appeal has to contain the name and the address of the appellant (Rule 99(1)(a) EPC), an indication of the decision impugned (Rule 99(1)(b) EPC) and a request defining the subject of the appeal (Rule 99(1)(c) EPC). [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:27 am
The debate focused on the pending objections under Article 100(a) and (b) EPC raised with regard to claim 1 of the patent as granted.XI. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 6:01 pm
In my opinion, before you file a petition for review, you should consider not only (a) if there are any good reasons for the EBA to allow the petition (which is rare), but also (b) if so, if this is likely to lead to a different outcome.I guess not many cases will pass this two stage test. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 10:57 am
” Robroy alleged that T&B made a number of false claims that only its Ocal products had certain features, such as meeting the UL 6 standard, the ANSI C80.1 standard, and the NEMA RN-1 standard, all significant industry standards. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 3:46 pm
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) reads as follows: (b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment. (1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
The skilled person would only have considered that the wording of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request was identical to the wording of claim 1 of the main request filed together with the SGA – with the exception of amendments (a) and (b) mentioned in the above mentioned letter – if there had not been any contradictions between this information and the actual wording of claim 1 of the third auxiliary request.[1.5] However, there is such a… [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm
”The amendment concerned the narrowing down of a class of compounds (alkylene carbonate) to an entity thereof (propylene carbonate).The competent Board decided that the amendment was not allowable under A 123(3), as other alkylene carbonates with 3-5 carbon atoms might be present in any amount after the amendment.The decision was based inter alia on the implicit proviso (Claim 1 as granted) that Component B was to be 0.5-50 wt.% in total.[7.1.2] T 1556/07 concerned… [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 1:00 am
In these circumstances, the board considers that the aspect of whether or not the line of argument is of prima facie relevance, an aspect which may also be taken into account in the context of Article 13(1) EPC, is outweighed by the aspects of complexity and the procedural stage at which the argument had been brought forward.Accordingly, the board, exercising its discretion, decided not to admit said line of argument (Article 13(1) RPBA).(...)This decision T… [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 7:28 am
It also raised objections under Article 123(2) EPC and for lack of novelty against the auxiliary request.It attached to its letter the following new item of evidence:D35: Copy of the Mr T B van Aken's publicly available entry in the "Linkedin" database.XI. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 6:19 am
Insufficiency of disclosure (Article 100(b) EPC)4.1 The Appellant objected that the subject-matter of claim 1 could not be carried out over the whole range claimed. [read post]
