Examples of using Auxiliary request in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
Auxiliary request V was refused.
Inventive step(auxiliary request)- no.
In these circumstances it is not necessary to consider the fifth auxiliary request.
Inventive step- auxiliary request no.
To expedite the proceedings the Opposition Division is basing a Rule 58(4) communication on auxiliary request 2.7.
People also translate
Hence, the first auxiliary request is not allowable.
Thus the board, using its discretion underArticle 13(1) RPBA, admits auxiliary request I into the proceedings.
The third auxiliary request comprises only device claims.
As matters stand, the Appellant's second auxiliary request has become purposeless.
Auxiliary request II containing two claims differs from the mainrequest in that in claim 1, the ds-rDNA of(a) is limited to preprochymosin.
Accordingly, the invention defined in claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 fails to meet the requirements of Article 83 EPC.
In auxiliary request 24, the Swisstype claim in claim 1 of auxiliary request 23 has been converted, with reference to Article 54(5) EPC 2000, into the corresponding purpose-related product claim.
Accordingly, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 24 fails to meet the requirements of Article 123(3) EPC.
It is therefore relevant for the further proceedings whether the respondent's first auxiliary request could be acceptable.
Furthermore, the Appellant made an auxiliary request for grant of the patent with text as in the Rule 51(4) communication.
The board is satisfied that the amended claims according to the main request and auxiliary request are formally allowable.
The claims according to the first auxiliary request differ from those according to the main request only….
Moreover, the appellant neither surprised nordisadvantaged the opposing parties on appeal when it turned the withdrawn auxiliary request 1 into its main request before the board.
The main claim of the Appellant's auxiliary request defines the matter for which protection is sought as.
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 concerns a monophasic, ovulation-inhibitory combination product, which comprises 23 or 24 dosage units, each comprising 0.25 mg drospirenone up to a drospirenone dose equivalent to 0.075 mg gestodene and 4 or 5 placebo pills.
In their reply the appellants declined to make auxiliary request 2.7 the main request, arguing essentially as follows.
Claim 1 according to auxiliary request 3 differs from claim 1 of the mainrequest in specifying additionally the substantially pure piperidine compounds to be obtainable by the preparation process generally described in the present application.
It follows from the above finding that the process of manufacture to which claim 1 of auxiliary request 23, in view of its content, is directed goes beyond the scope of protection conferred by the use claims as granted.
The third auxiliary request includes an explicit step of displaying the results of the simulation, but the Board is satisfied that claim1 of the main request already provides information about the simulated movement of pedestrians through a modelled environment see point9 above.
Thus, at least after introduction of the disclaimer to claim 1 of auxiliary request 1, methods covered by Article 53(c) EPC had been excluded from the claimed subject-matter.
The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 6 differs from the most relevant document, i.e. document B, by the newly introduced features.
However, the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 23, comprising an ethinylestradiol concentration of 0.015 mg to 0.020 mg, falls in terms of the ethinylestradiol concentration of 0.015 mg to.
In the Board's view the subject-matter of Claim 1 according to the auxiliary request(see Section X above) relates to a measuring device capable of being fitted that displays features of Claims 1, 2 and 6 as originally filed.
However, the subject-matter of the present claim 5 of auxiliary request 2 differs fundamentally from such a case because it defines a specific active substance(drospirenone) by a dosage range which is, in principle, specific.
If the patent can only be maintained on the basis of an auxiliary request, the decision has to contain a reasoned statementwhy the version of the main request(and any higher-ranking auxiliary request) does not meet the requirements of the EPC seeT 234/86.