Übersetzung für "Ursprüngliche offenbarung" in Englisch

Whence then, all this identity of ideas, if there was no primeval UNIVERSAL Revelation?

Use of the original disclosure for further restricting the claims must be considered perfectly admissible.

Should such an illustration for whatever reason become necessary, reference is right from the start made to the sufficient original disclosure according to FIGS. 1 and 2 and the associated description.

In the Muslim view, it is obvious that priority is to be given to the original revelation over a later one because the former must be the true source of the divine Word.

In the Board's opinion, there is no unmistakable indication in the original disclosure that one cavity of this specific embodiment might be empty or contain a piezoelectric sensing element, nor would the claimed generalisations be implicit from said figure and its associated description.

There are no formal objections under Article 123 EPC, to Claims 1 to 14 in accordance with both the main and auxiliary requests since both sets of claims are adequately supported by the original disclosure and do not extend the scope of protection conferred.

No such situation can, however, arise with the abandonment of inessential features from (conjunctive) combinations, since the embodiments generated in this manner may then be "anticipated" by the original disclosure (cf. T 194/84 ibid.).

So Jairus had to be redirected to focus on his original revelation and faith that arose out of that revelation, that if Jesus came and laid hands on her, his daughter would be OK.

The critical question is how the original disclosure of the claimed subject-matter is to be determined in the case of the introduction into a claim of a disclaimer disclaiming disclosed subject-matter.

When mortal men repeatedly "lend meaning" to something supposed already to be immutable, and force all spiritual tradition into the framework of their worldly political ambition, what remains cannot be an original revelation of God.

However, according to established practice of the boards of appeal obviousness of a feature is not a replacement for the original disclosure.

Both articles enshrine the principle that before grant the legal security of third parties is sufficiently protected by the prohibition of extending the content of the application by amendment beyond what was originally disclosed.

If however it can be proved using the original document that the content of an abstract does not concur with the original disclosure then the original disclosure prevails, and the abstract will be interpreted or corrected in the light of this disclosure.

The appellant's view has been objected to by the respondent who on the contrary considers such deletions or indications to be generally substantive in the sense that they reduce the original disclosure to the subject-matter retained in the patent specification, i.e. a "cut-off point" ("Zäsurwirkung") is effected by the grant of a patent preventing any subsequent reinstatement of subject-matter "abandoned" before grant.

The grounds given for refusal were that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC, because the mention of three clones having respectively the deposit numbers VR2097, VR2098 and VR2099 constituted subject-matter extending beyond the original disclosure.

The remaining features of the claim are for the most part supported by the original disclosure, objection arising only in respect of the word "intimate" in the expression "in intimate admixture".

In the respondent's view, pursuant to Article 123(2) EPC the original disclosure determines the reservoir of possible amendments before grant.

Later in the process described above there were many moments, in which the need of getting more clarity about the initial revelation - the Vision of the Grail - was pushing itself forward.

T 118/88 had concluded that the obviousness of a feature was no replacement for the original disclosure.

When mortal men repeatedly “lend meaning” to something supposed already to be immutable, and force all spiritual tradition into the framework of their worldly political ambition, what remains cannot be an original revelation of God.

If one or more of several possible meanings are beyond the original disclosure, the words are not allowable.

2.2.5 In view of the above considerations, it has to be concluded that the amendments made by the Appellant in Claim 1 result in generating another invention not disclosed in and not directly and unambiguously derivable from the original application, contrary to the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC.

There is no formal objection to the current version of the claims, since it is adequately supported by the original disclosure and no amendment has been submitted during the opposition or appeal procedures.

The originating revelation gets gradually distorted by what Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan calls "the followers of the followers".

Thus it is originally a Revelation of God the Almighty.

Limits are set, however, by the original disclosure and the state of the art.

The consequence of this was that the totality of the documents as filed counted as the disclosure.

Clearly, then, a correction may not result in an extension of the original disclosure.

It is explicitly stated that all value ranges or indications of groups of entities disclose every possible intermediate value or intermediate entity for the purpose of original disclosure as well as for the purpose of restricting the claimed invention.

The original plan apparently called for a viaduct, but this plan was abandoned and the half-built arches were filled in to form the present causeway.

In order to avoid repetitions, the disclosures of the above-mentioned applications are incorporated herein by reference, as a constituent of the original disclosure of the present application.

In order to avoid repetition, it is stated here explicitly that this European patent application, as a whole, is part of the scope of the original disclosure of the present application.

But at no point does AccuWeather’s updated app explicitly state that the location data will be used for advertising, a key criticism first noted by Strafach in his original disclosure.

This means direct and unambiguous derivability from and no contradiction to the totality of the original disclosure (cf. Point 2.7 of the Reasons).

This meant direct and unambiguous derivability from and no contradiction of the totality of the original disclosure (same reasoning followed in T 527/88 and T 685/90).

It can be inferred from the decisions quoted above that, to be admissible, a disclaimer not supported by the original disclosure must fulfil only the following conditions: