Translation of "Dokument stand" in English

The document bore his signature.

Does document D form part of the state of the art in respect of claim 2?

However in a document circulated by Distribution yesterday called 'Activities' , it says that the Commission's action plan for the new transit in Europe customs policy should go to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy.

A "Document d'étape" (interim document) on the Energy Strategy was presented by Commissioner Oettinger as a contribution to the May 2010 Energy Council.

Mr Westlake, the secretary-general, made some preliminary remarks concerning some of the related administrative decisions before presenting the document in question:

Attention had been focused on the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework, the fifth RTD framework programme 1998-2002, as well as on a document on progress made in reforming the telecommunications sector and on the situation in the telecommunications market (implementation of directives, price trends, authorization procedures, etc.).

The piece of paper you just burnt also states that, as Horace Delaney's widow,

In order to inform the Commission on the completion of the actions in con­formity with the conditions and deadlines stipulated in the decisions awarding the aid, the competent national organisms transmit to the Commission a document which describes the progress of the works or any other substanti­ating item.

During the oral proceedings before the Opposition Division the Opponent also cited the following prior art document:

In T 652/01 the appellant/opponent was of the opinion that although the relevant prior-art document did not explicitly mention a particular feature, that feature could be derived from the document by applying the document's teaching mutatis mutandis.

In contrast to the state of the art known from document D1, which came closest to the process claimed in Claim 1, the process according to the invention had the characters displayed in unmutilated form immediately following a keystroke.

As regards the substance, the Opposition Division held, on the one hand, that the subject-matter of Claim 1 was new in relation to the state of the art disclosed in document 1 and that, on the other hand, the objections of impermissible extension and lack of clarity raised by the Opponents during the oral proceedings were unfounded.

The principle set out under point 9 above was applied coherently in decision T 917/94 of 28 October 1999, which considered a disclaimer with no basis in the original application as inadmissible because the prior art document which gave rise to it related to the same field (as well as to the same technical problem) as the claimed invention.

If you open an existing document, edit it, then decide you don't want to keep any of your changes, you can revert the document to how it was when you opened it.

Although it was held in No. 9.1 of the reasons of this decision that the "problem and solution approach" is not a sine qua non for the determination of inventiveness by the EPO, it follows, in the Board's judgment, from the detailed explanations given in the following points 9.2 to 9.6 of the reasons, that in that case the Board refrained from identifying a certain document as "closest state of the art" and formulating a "technical problem" on the basis of such a state of the art.

Thus, the presence or absence of such more detailed information did not influence the answer to the question whether or not the relevant disclosure in a particular document belonged to the state of the art.

This prior-art document relates to decorative surfaces, in which a carrier is covered by an imitation-leather skin, a slush, a TPO film, a PVC film, a foam film, a spray skin or a casting skin, in order to obtain a decorative seam appearance.

This document of the state of the art especially shows a drive arrangement for a motor-driven saber saw that has a motor drive and a gear mechanism to convert a rotational motion of the motor drive into a reciprocating motion.

A prior art document describing L-boards and their processing is, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,087,498 A. SUMMARY

As such planetary gear trains 1 are already known in principle from the prior art, for example from the aforementioned document cited as the prior art, no further explanations are necessary at this point.

Unlike the document on the prior art initially quoted, both the preparation of a program and the configuring of a program are meant by the term “programming” within the framework of the invention.

They didn't inform him that he was considered to be a witness, nor did they explain the document that he was required to sign, or why they took his fingerprints.

However, a document's age as such is not a ground for excluding it as closest prior art and as a starting point for the assessment of inventive step (T 1408/04).

D5 is indisputably considered as the closest state of the art.

The apparent abuse of procedure through a non-excusable failure in presenting cases fully at the earliest possible stage was addressed in case T 416/87, but the Board settled for an apportionment of costs, because the late-filed document was considered the closest prior art and therefore admissible.