Posts tagged with: "Enlarged-Board-of-Appeal"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 1,196
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2015, 5:29 am
| How cool is TMView | The "crowded field" in trade mark law | Genetic patents | US Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit and Google Books. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 5:01 pm
This also holds true when – as happens from time to time – the new facts are not introduced into the proceedings by one of the parties but by the Board of appeal (BoA). [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 4:01 pm
In this respect, the board refers to the decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 1/92, according to which the composition of a product is contained in the state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by a skilled person, irrespective of whether or not particular reasons can be identified for analysing the composition (see G 1/92 [headnotes]). [3.3.11] When arguing that the possibility of adjusting the… [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 1:42 am
The most valuable one of Apple's three software patents-in-suit in the first case (most of the damages there relate to design patents, not software patents), the '915 pinch-to-zoom API patent, has meanwhile been rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Apple had to file an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 9:52 am
., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) final written decisions in two inter partes reviews (“IPR”) wherein it was held that LG Electronics Inc. [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 6:13 am
Although Appellants have framed their causes of action and arguments on appeal as if there are inconsistent claims to Section 16, the patent is consistent with the existence of the easement. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 11:08 pm
Punjab State Electricity Board, examined the scope of S. 100 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the law relating to Second Appeals against decrees. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:15 am
One notable topic is the Bill’s proposed shift from the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) at the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to a district court style claim construction. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Something attorneys amending claims – especially in the chemical field – have to be aware of is the risk of adding features that apparently limit the claim but which de facto enlarge the scope of the claim. [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 3:02 pm
The Board does not agree with this finding. [4.2] It is noted that since the contested decision was issued, the Enlarged Board of Appeal has handed down decision G 1/07, in view of which the objection under A 52(4) EPC 1973 raised in is no longer valid. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 1:10 am
The Office has borrowed heavily from patent interference practice in arriving at the proposed rules of procedural practice before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB); this makes sense. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:27 pm
Over the next several months, the City's 59 community boards, five borough boards and borough presidents, the CPC and the City Council reviewed the proposed amendments and conducted public hearings. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 5:01 pm
In this respect, the Board disagrees with the conclusion reached by the ED […] that the disclaimers of claims 11 and 14 removed more than was necessary. [5] As such the disclaimers of the main request, while meeting the criteria as set forth in decision G 1/03 [order], do not change the subject-matter of the application as filed, within the meaning of A 123(2). [6] In decision G 2/10 […], it was considered that in decision G 1/03 the Enlarged Board of… [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 5:01 pm
According to the case law of the boards of appeal, information is “available to the public” if only a single member of the public is in a position to gain access to it and understand it, and if said member of the public is under no obligation to maintain secrecy (see T 1081/01 [5], affirmed by T 1309/07 [3.2.1]). [read post]
1 May 2010, 11:00 am
However, it is an accepted principle in most patent systems that two patents cannot be granted to the same applicant for one invention [emphasis added by the board]. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 3:01 pm
The present decision deals with appeals of all parties against the decision of the Opposition Division (OD) to maintain the opposed patent in amended form.Claim 1 as granted read:1. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 3:01 pm
The reasons for this decision contain the following paragraph:“[9] Where a therapeutic application is claimed in the form allowed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in its decision G 5/83 i.e. in the form of the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a defined therapeutic application, attaining the claimed therapeutic effect is a functional technical feature of the claim (see G 2/88 and G 6/88 [headnote III; 9], for non-medical… [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 5:01 pm
Should the Board not be minded to follow the reasoning of these latter two decisions, the appellant requested the Board to refer the following question to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA): “Is retraction by correction of a withdrawal of a patent application no longer possible if the withdrawal has already been recorded for inspection in the Register (per J 25/03 and J 14/04) or should publication of the withdrawal to the general public in the… [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 4:45 pm
However, even in this decision the principle that an embodiment "positively" disclosed in the application as filed can be disclaimed appears not to have been questioned as it follows from point 2.4.1 of the reasons. [33] The strict approach adopted in decision T 323/97 with respect to disclaimers in general caused two other boards to refer questions of law to the Enlarged Board (EBA). [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 3:14 pm
And compulsory licensing (Afro-IP) Europe: Notice from the European Patent Office dated 7 July 2010 concerning inventions which involve the use of or concern biological material (WIPO) Europe: Notice from the European Patent Office dated 20 September 2010 concerning the non-acceptance of Swiss-type claims for second or further medical use following decision G 2/08 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (WIPO) India: Drug marketing approvals may be delinked from patent status… [read post]
