Examples of using Board found in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
The board found that Art.
Analysing decision G 5/83(OJ 1985, 64), the board found that any use to which Art.
In T 1134/06 the board found that a disclosure on the Internet could be comprised within the state of the art as defined by Art.
Following T 806/99,which was based on almost identical facts, the board found these conditions to be fulfilled here.
The board found that such deletion cannot be reversed after grant of the patent since it is tantamount to an abandonment.
In T 951/91 the board found that by interpreting Art.
In J10/16 the board found that a divisional application could not be filed from the point in time at which the parent application was deemed to have been withdrawn here.
In the case at hand, the board found that the large number of control units supplied suggested that they had not been test units.
In T 883/03 the board found that the teaching that could have led to the characterising feature of claim 1 had long formed part of the state of the art; yet for all that time experts had been"blind" to that knowledge.
In T 587/98(OJ 2000, 497) the board found that the claims were not"conflicting" claims within the meaning of the Guidelines.
The board found that under R. 88, first sentence, EPC 1973, it was not sufficient to prove that a divergence had occurred between the true intention of the applicant and the declaration filed by its representative;
As a consequence, the board found that the claimed invention was contradictory in itself, so that the skilled person was at a complete loss as to what he should do.
The board found that there was a general principle of law generally recognised in the contracting states which did not allow double patenting arising from a granted national patent and a granted European patent, but this did not provide a basis for refusing a European application under Art.
As to example 1, the board found that it did not disclose an essential feature of the method of making the product of the patent in suit.
In T 46/07, the board found that, if the fee for re-establishment of rights is paid after expiry of the two-month period laid down in Art.
In T 89/87 the board found that"0.005 mm"(= 5 nm) was a misprint contained in the prior document and that only"0.0005 mm"(= 0.5 nm) was correct.
In T 285/03 the board found that the interpretation offered by the appellant amounted to a disclaimer although it was not phrased in the usual form.
 11 RPBA, the board found that no purpose would be served by remitting the case to the examining division, which would most likely eventually have issued another, better reasoned decision to the same effect.
Citing T 134/94 and T 1082/93, the board found that without those features the invention according to claim 1 could not be the same as that described in the priority document, and the requirements of Art.
In T 279/93 the board found that a claim to the use of a compound A in a process for preparing compound B had no broader scope than a claim to a process for preparing compound B from compound A.
In T 1178/04(OJ 2008, 80) the board found the appeal filed by the opponent admissible even where the validity of the opponent's status was challenged following a disputed transfer, as a person was a party to proceedings for the purposes of Art.
In T 671/06 the board found that a claim to a system comprising a power source specified in broad functional terms and a claim to a power source for the system specified in structural terms did not fall under the exception envisaged in R. 29(2)(a) EPC 1973.
The board finds out, everyone involved is done, forever.
The board finds you obsolete.
On this board finds a F4 Flight Controller, integrated Betaflight OSD, SD card slot.
Accordingly, the Board finds that the Examining Division was right in disallowing the applicant's main request.
The Board finds that the program in this respect is contrary to the demand of objectivity.
Having examined the documents onfile, and considered the appellant's submissions in this respect, the Board finds that the auxiliary request had not, at any relevant stage, been abandoned.
If the board finds that the complaint is of a serious nature or if it relates to a breach of this code of conduct, or if it otherwise compromises the interests of Cyrus Ross it shall be reported to the next general meeting of members and the board shall make recommendations to that meeting.
In these circumstances, the Board finds that such a functional definition cannot be regarded as the most concise way of defining the invention as described in the body of the specification, but is rather an attempt to claim not only the technical contribution to the art actually described, but also to monopolise a technical area extending well beyond it.
