[11:14] schestowitz[TR3][11:14] schestowitz[TR3]Intel may slow down or even cancel development of its 14A process technology (1.4nm-class) if it fails to land a major external customer for this production node, or if the fabrication process fails to meet crucial milestones. This is the first time Intel has admitted to considering withdrawing from the leading-edge semiconductor technology race for a major node, essentially leaving leading-edge p [11:14] schestowitz[TR3] rocess technologies to TSMC and possibly Samsung Foundry.
[11:14] schestowitz[TR3]
@ Santa,
I can agree with you that opposition is a document based procedure, but in opposition the onus of proof lies in principle with the opponent.
It might well be that in antibody cases [that] the burden of proof stays with the patentee in opposition for showing novelty/inventive step for complex definitions of binding properties, but t [17:19] schestowitz[TR3] his appears to be an exception.
G 1/24, reasons 17:
"The finding that the language of a claim is clear and unambiguous is an act of interpretation, not a preliminary stage to such an interpretative act".
A finding of clarity for the wording of the claim thus requires the Board to have concluded that, despite the custom (narrow) definition provided in the patent, there was no [17:19] schestowitz[TR3] doubt that