text
G, or g, is the seventh letter in the Latin alphabet, used in the modern English alphabet, the alphabets of other western European languages and others worldwide. Its name in English is gee (pronounced ), plural gees.The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 1976. ==History== The evolution of the Latin alphabet's G can be traced back to the Latin alphabet's predecessor, the Greek alphabet. The voiced velar stop was represented by the third letter of the Greek alphabet, gamma (Γ), which was later adopted by the Etruscan language. Latin then borrowed this "rounded form" of gamma, C, to represent the same sound in words such as recei, which was likely an early dative form of rex, meaning "king," as found in an "early Latin inscription." Over time, however, the letter C shifted to represent the unvoiced velar stop, leading to the displacement of the letter K. Scholars believe that this change can be attributed to the influence of the Etruscan language on Latin. Afterwards, the letter 'G' was introduced in the Old Latin period as a variant of 'C' to distinguish voiced from voiceless , and G was used to represent a voiced velar from this point on and C "stood for the unvoiced velar only". The recorded originator of 'G' is freedman Spurius Carvilius Ruga, who added letter G to the teaching of the Roman alphabet during the 3rd century BC: he was the first Roman to open a fee-paying school, around 230 BCE. At this time, 'K' had fallen out of favor, and 'C', which had formerly represented both and before open vowels, had come to express in all environments. Ruga's positioning of 'G' shows that alphabetic order related to the letters' values as Greek numerals was a concern even in the 3rd century BC. According to some records, the original seventh letter, 'Z', had been purged from the Latin alphabet somewhat earlier in the 3rd century BC by the Roman censor Appius Claudius, who found it distasteful and foreign.Encyclopaedia Romana Sampson (1985) suggests that: "Evidently the order of the alphabet was felt to be such a concrete thing that a new letter could be added in the middle only if a 'space' was created by the dropping of an old letter." George Hempl proposed in 1899 that there never was such a "space" in the alphabet and that in fact 'G' was a direct descendant of zeta. Zeta took shapes like ⊏ in some of the Old Italic scripts; the development of the monumental form 'G' from this shape would be exactly parallel to the development of 'C' from gamma. He suggests that the pronunciation > was due to contamination from the also similar- looking 'K'. Eventually, both velar consonants and developed palatalized allophones before front vowels; consequently in today's Romance languages, and have different sound values depending on context (known as hard and soft C and hard and soft G). Because of French influence, English language orthography shares this feature. ===Typographic variants=== The modern lowercase 'g' has two typographic variants: the single-storey (sometimes "opentail") '8px' and the double-storey (sometimes "looptail") '8px'. The single-storey form derives from the majuscule (uppercase) form by raising the serif that distinguishes it from 'c' to the top of the loop (thus closing the loop), and extending the vertical stroke downward and to the left. The double-storey form had developed similarly, except that some ornate forms then extended the tail back to the right, and to the left again, forming a closed bowl or loop. The initial extension to the left was absorbed into the upper closed bowl. The double- storey version became popular when printing switched to "Roman type" because the tail was effectively shorter, making it possible to put more lines on a page. In the double-storey version, a small top stroke in the upper-right, often terminating in an orb shape, is called an "ear". Generally, the two forms are complementary, but occasionally the difference has been exploited to provide contrast. In the International Phonetic Alphabet, opentail has always represented a voiced velar plosive, while was distinguished from and represented a voiced velar fricative from 1895 to 1900. In 1948, the Council of the International Phonetic Association recognized and as typographic equivalents, and this decision was reaffirmed in 1993. While the 1949 Principles of the International Phonetic Association recommended the use of for a velar plosive and for an advanced one for languages where it is preferable to distinguish the two, such as Russian, * Reprinted in Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40 (3), December 2010, pp. 299–358, . this practice never caught on. The 1999 Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, the successor to the Principles, abandoned the recommendation and acknowledged both shapes as acceptable variants. Wong et al. (2018) found that native English speakers have little conscious awareness of the looptail form They write: "Despite being questioned repeatedly, and despite being informed directly that G has two lowercase print forms, nearly half of the participants failed to reveal any knowledge of the looptail 'g', and only 1 of the 38 participants was able to write looptail 'g' correctly." In Unicode, the two appearances are generally treated as glyph variants with no semantic difference. Most serif typefaces use the opentail form (for example, g) and most sans-serif typefaces use the looptail form (for example, g) but the code point in both cases is U+0067. For applications where the single-storey variant must be distinguished (such as strict IPA in a typeface where the usual g character is double-storey), the character is available, as well as an upper case version, . ==Pronunciation and use== Pronunciations of Gg Language Dialect(s) Pronunciation (IPA) Environment Notes Afrikaans Arabic Latinization; corresponding to or in Arabic Azeri Catalan /(d)ʒ/ Before e, i Usually Danish Word-initially Usually Dutch Standard Southern dialects Northern dialects English Before e, i, y (see exceptions below) Usually Before e, i in "modern" loanwords from French silent Some words, initial , and word- finally before a consonant Esperanto Faroese soft, lenited; see Faroese phonology hard soft after a, æ, á, e, o, ø and before u after ó, u, ú and before a, i, or u silent after a, æ, á, e, o, ø and before a Fijian French Usually Before e, i, y Galician ~ Usually See Gheada for consonant variation Before e, i obsolete spelling, replaced by the letter x Greek Usually Latinization Before ai, e, i, oi, y Latinization Icelandic soft hard hard, lenited; see Icelandic phonology soft, lenited Irish Usually After i or before e, i Italian Usually Before e, i Mandarin Standard Pinyin latinization Norman Before e, i Usually Norwegian Usually Before ei, i, j, øy, y Portuguese Usually Before e, i, y Romanian Before e, i Usually Romansh Before e, i Usually Samoan Scottish Gaelic Usually After i or before e, i Spanish Usually or Before e, i, y Variation between velar and glottal realizations depends on dialect Swedish Usually Before ä, e, i, ö, y Turkish Usually Before e, i, ö, ü Vietnamese Standard Northern /z/ Before i Southern /j/ Before i ===English=== In English, the letter appears either alone or in some digraphs. Alone, it represents * a voiced velar plosive ( or "hard" ), as in goose, gargoyle, and game; * a voiced palato-alveolar affricate ( or "soft" ), predominates before or , as in giant, ginger, and geology; or * a voiced palato-alveolar sibilant () in post-medieval loanwords from French, such as rouge, beige, genre (often), and margarine (rarely) is predominantly soft before (including the digraphs and ), , or , and hard otherwise. It is hard in those derivations from γυνή (gynḗ) meaning woman where initial-worded as such. Soft is also used in many words that came into English from medieval church/academic use, French, Spanish, Italian or Portuguese - these tend to, in other ways in English, closely align to their Ancient Latin and Greek roots (such as fragile, logic or magic). There remain widely used a few English words of non- Romance origin where is hard followed by or (get, give, gift), and very few in which is soft though followed by such as gaol, which since the 20th century is almost always written as "jail". The double consonant has the value (hard ) as in nugget, with very few exceptions: in exaggerate and veggies and dialectally in suggest. The digraph has the value (soft ), as in badger. Non-digraph can also occur, in compounds like floodgate and headgear. The digraph may represent: * a velar nasal () as in length, singer * the latter followed by hard () as in jungle, finger, longest Non-digraph also occurs, with possible values * as in engulf, ungainly * as in sponge, angel * as in melange The digraph (in many cases a replacement for the obsolete letter yogh, which took various values including , , and ) may represent: * as in ghost, aghast, burgher, spaghetti * as in cough, laugh, roughage * ∅ (no sound) as in through, neighbor, night * in ugh * (rarely) in hiccough * (rarely) in s'ghetti Non-digraph also occurs, in compounds like foghorn, pigheaded. The digraph may represent: * as in gnostic, deign, foreigner, signage * in loanwords like champignon, lasagna Non-digraph also occurs, as in signature, agnostic. The trigraph has the value as in gingham or dinghy. Non-trigraph also occurs, in compounds like stronghold and dunghill. G is the tenth least frequently used letter in the English language (after Y, P, B, V, K, J, X, Q, and Z), with a frequency of about 2.02% in words. ===Other languages=== Most Romance languages and some Nordic languages also have two main pronunciations for , hard and soft. While the soft value of varies in different Romance languages ( in French and Portuguese, in Catalan, in Italian and Romanian, and in most dialects of Spanish), in all except Romanian and Italian, soft has the same pronunciation as the . In Italian and Romanian, is used to represent before front vowels where would otherwise represent a soft value. In Italian and French, is used to represent the palatal nasal , a sound somewhat similar to the in English canyon. In Italian, the trigraph , when appearing before a vowel or as the article and pronoun gli, represents the palatal lateral approximant . Other languages typically use to represent regardless of position. Amongst European languages, Czech, Dutch, Estonian and Finnish are an exception as they do not have in their native words. In Dutch, represents a voiced velar fricative instead, a sound that does not occur in modern English, but there is a dialectal variation: many Netherlandic dialects use a voiceless fricative ( or ) instead, and in southern dialects it may be palatal . Nevertheless, word-finally it is always voiceless in all dialects, including the standard Dutch of Belgium and the Netherlands. On the other hand, some dialects (like Amelands) may have a phonemic . Faroese uses to represent , in addition to , and also uses it to indicate a glide. In Māori, is used in the digraph which represents the velar nasal and is pronounced like the in singer. The Samoan and Fijian languages use the letter by itself for . In older Czech and Slovak orthographies, was used to represent , while was written as ( with caron). The Azerbaijani Latin alphabet uses exclusively for the "soft" sound, namely . The sound is written as . This leads to unusual spellings of loanwords: qram 'gram', qrup 'group', qaraj 'garage', qallium 'gallium'. ==Related characters== ===Ancestors, descendants and siblings=== * 𐤂 : Semitic letter Gimel, from which the following symbols originally derive * C c : Latin letter C, from which G derives * : Greek letter Gamma, from which C derives in turn * ɡ : Latin letter script small G * ᶢ : Modifier letter small script g is used for phonetic transcription * 𝼁 : Latin small letter reversed script g, an extension to IPA for disordered speech (extIPA) * ᵷ : Turned g * 𝼂 : Latin letter small capital turned g, an extension to IPA for disordered speech (extIPA) * Г г : Cyrillic letter Ge * Ȝ ȝ : Latin letter Yogh * Ɣ ɣ : Latin letter Gamma * Ᵹ ᵹ : Insular g * ᫌ : Combining insular g, used in the Ormulum * Ꝿ ꝿ : Turned insular g * Ꟑ ꟑ : Closed insular g, used in the Ormulum * ɢ : Latin letter small capital G, used in the International Phonetic Alphabet to represent a voiced uvular stop * 𐞒 : Modifier letter small capital G, used as a superscript IPA letter * ʛ : Latin letter small capital G with hook, used in the International Phonetic Alphabet to represent a voiced uvular implosive * 𐞔 : Modifier letter small capital G with hook, used as a superscript IPA letter * 𐞓 : Modifier letter small g with hook, used as a superscript IPA letter * ᴳ ᵍ : Modifier letters are used in the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet * ꬶ : Used for the Teuthonista phonetic transcription system * G with diacritics: Ǵ ǵ Ǥ ǥ Ĝ ĝ Ǧ ǧ Ğ ğ Ģ ģ Ɠ ɠ Ġ ġ Ḡ ḡ Ꞡ ꞡ ᶃ *ց : Armenian alphabet Tso ===Ligatures and abbreviations=== * ₲ : Paraguayan guaraní ==Computing codes== : 1 ==Other representations== ==See also== * Carolingian G * Hard and soft G * ==References== ==External links== * * * * Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary: G Category:ISO basic Latin letters
G & G vs. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB) was an English legal case. The case involved "G" who sought a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring that the respondent disclose the IP address of an individual who had edited Wikipedia to include private and sensitive information about her and her child. The order was granted. The judgment drew attention, inter alia, in paragraph 12 to the risk that "the naming of the respondent may indirectly enable readers who already know other information about the case to identify of [sic] the claimant." The possibility is alluded to again in paragraph 40, which notes that "There are occasions when the court does impose a prohibition upon disclosure of the fact that an order has been made." ==References== ==External links== *Judgment on BAILII Category:Wikipedia controversies Category:2009 in United Kingdom case law Category:Wikimedia Foundation litigation
The G & J Trophy Race was an automobile race held at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in each of the two years prior to the first Indianapolis 500. The trophy was sponsored by the G & J Tire Company. ==Race results== Year Date Winning Driver Car Race Distance Time of Race Winning Speed Starting Cars Miles Laps 1909 Aug 20 Lewis Strang Buick 100 40 01:32:47.08 64.611 mph 6 1910 July 1 Billy Pearce [a] FAL 50 20 00:45:12.83 66.351 mph 11 Note: [a] Billy Pearce was awarded the victory in the G & J Trophy race of July 1, 1910, after the original first and second place finishers (Bob Burman and Louis Chevrolet) were disqualified. The disqualifications took place a few weeks after the race was run, because Burman's and Chevrolet's Marquette-Buick cars did not meet the rules' definition of a "stock car." Burman's winning time would have been 0:40:03.08, for a speed of 74.904 mph. ==Sources== *Scott, D. Bruce; INDY: Racing Before the 500; Indiana Reflections; 2005; . *Galpin, Darren; A Record of Motorsport Racing Before World War I. *http://www.motorsport.com/stats/champ/byyear.asp?Y=1909 *http://www.motorsport.com/stats/champ/byyear.asp?Y=1910 *http://www.champcarstats.com/year/1909.htm *http://www.champcarstats.com/year/1910.htm Category:Auto races in the United States Category:Motorsport in Indianapolis
G&R; Wrenn was a toy company specialising in the manufacture of model railways. It was founded in 1950 by George & Richard Wrenn. == Origins == G&R; Wrenn's first product line was trackwork for 00 gauge model railway equipment, producing a variety of points and crossings for both 2- and 3-rail formats. Initially located at Lee Green in southeast London, the company moved in 1955 to new larger premises in Basildon in Essex, where it remained until its final dissolution in 1992. In October 1957 the family partnership was formed into a limited liability company, G&R; Wrenn Ltd. === Slot-car racing === In 1960, the company branched out into electric car racing toys similar to Scalextric but whereas Scalextric adopted the popular 1/32 scale, Wrenn produced their "Formula 152 model racing system" to 1/52, and with a twin conductor rail on each side of the 'slot' the system was capable of running three cars at a time on each lane. The smaller scale meant that quite comprehensive circuits could be fitted on to an 8' x 4' baseboard, but generally, electrical conductivity was quite fragile, so many users adopted a practice of a second conductor track piece on the far side of the circuit. Some accessories were marketed, such as track barriers, lap counters, pit buildings etc., but as the only proponents of the 1/52 scale, the system was never popular, The original cars were a Ferrari and a Cooper and used an electromagnetic ratchet and pawl system and a contact breaker, rather than the more traditional wound electric motors. This first motor could be run on 16v AC or 12v DC current, with AC current providing slightly more power. Power was either 'on' or 'off' and cars would freewheel around corners, needing a totally different driving technique to variable speed motors. Cars could only run for a short time as they were rather prone to overheating, and performances varied wildly, according to contact and brush settings. Next Wrenn introduced a Vanwall and a Maserati into the vibrator-motored range of cars. Later developments moved on to more traditional DC motors with a variable speed control. Then all of the existing cars were available with this new motor and finally a BRM and Porsche were added to the rather limited range. Wrenn set up a '152 Drivers club' complete with metal badge and a short lived newsletter. Other products included battery-operated boats. == Tri-ang Wrenn == The mid-1960s were a bad time for the model trade and several companies collapsed. Lines Bros Ltd (operating as Tri-ang) bought up the Hornby Dublo line in 1964 after the collapse of the Meccano Ltd empire and a year and a half later bought a controlling share in G&R; Wrenn. Wrenn acquired the old Hornby Dublo moulds and from 1967 continued to produce these models under the Wrenn name as well as acting as the distributor for the remaining unsold Dublo stocks. Around the same time the Wrenn car racing system – which had competed with Lines' Scalextric – disappeared. There was speculation as to whether a deal was cut involving the Dublo moulds and the disappearance of the Wrenn racing system; but no details of any such arrangement have ever emerged in surviving records from the time. In 1968 Wrenn took on the same role with Tri-ang's TT scale range as it had with Dublo, and the 'Wrenn Table Top' name was used to sell off the remaining stocks of the abandoned Tri-ang TT 3 mm scale models. From late 1969 the company adopted the styling "Tri-ang Wrenn" for its products; but this lasted for less than three years. == Post Tri-ang == In 1971, the Lines Bros group collapsed into receivership. Wrenn bought itself free from the Official Receiver and continued to trade as G&R; Wrenn Ltd, primarily selling mostly die-cast products from the former 'Hornby Dublo' line. Although they obtained rights and the tooling for most of the Hornby Dublo models, they did not acquire the Hornby brandname. Lines Bros had obtained this name as a result of buying up Hornby Dublo and used it as part of the name 'Tri-ang Hornby'. The Hornby name was subsequently sold to Rovex Ltd. Wrenn also had a sideline reselling Lima N gauge models into the United Kingdom under the name 'Wrenn Micro-models'. In 1992, G&R; Wrenn Ltd at Basildon finally closed down. In addition to the models made from the original Hornby Dublo tooling, during the 1980s the company had introduced brand new models in the form of the air smoothed (so called 'Spam Can') Bulleid Pacifics, the LMS Royal Scot and the Brighton Belle sets. 1992 was not to be the end however. Even as the closedown took place, Dapol was busy purchasing the remaining materials. Dapol made little use of the inherited Wrenn material, selling a few wagons and reusing some of the designs in N gauge. In 2001 Dapol sold the Wrenn company to new owners - three avid Wrenn collectors, have kept the Company alive and launched a Collectors Club run by themselves and launched a web-site at www.gandr- wrenn.co.uk where brand new models and parts and spares could be bought. Some of the original wagon body moulds did not form part of the sale and they have now been absorbed into the Dapol production line. In 2009 the Company ran a new 'hot metal' production run of the most popular Wrenn loco body - the Bulleid 'Spam Can' and this and the Rebuilt Bulleid loco bodies formed part of brand new Loco body models available to collectors through the Company web- site. The company ceased trading in October 2015 == References == * ==External links== * G & R Wrenn Ltd Official site at the Wayback Machine * Wrenn model railways Tribute site * Official Wrenn Collectors Club * Wrenn railways collectors club * Wrenn Formula 152 Slot Cars Category:Manufacturing companies established in 1950 Category:Model railroad manufacturers Category:Model manufacturers of the United Kingdom Category:Toy train manufacturers Category:Die-cast toys Category:Hornby Railways Category:Slot car brands Category:Slot car manufacturers
G is a 2002 American drama film directed by Christopher Scott Cherot. It is loosely based on the 1925 novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. The title character, G, played by Richard T. Jones, is a hip-hop music mogul who is looking to win back the love of his life, Sky (based on the character Daisy Buchanan from the original novel). ==Cast== ==Release== G made its worldwide premiere on May 10, 2002 at the Tribeca Film Festival in United States. It made its theatrical premiere on October 28, 2005 in the US, more than 3 years from its initial premiere. Since then, it has been released on DVD in Spain, Iceland, and Hungary. ==External links== * * * * * * Category:2002 films Category:2002 drama films Category:Films scored by Bill Conti Category:Films based on The Great Gatsby Category:African-American drama films Category:2000s hip hop films Category:2000s English-language films Category:2000s American films
G: Methamphetamine on the Navajo Nation, known simply as G is a 2004 independent documentary film directed and produced by Shonie De La Rosa and Larry Blackhorse Lowe. It explores the effect that methamphetamine has had on the Navajo Nation and interviews the people whose lives have been affected by the highly addictive drug. ==Award== * 2004 – American Indian Film Festival: Best Public Service AwardIHS June 2005 Accessed 2010-09-30.gallupindependent.com Accessed 2010-09-30.native networks Accessed 2010-09-30. ==See also== * Mile Post 398, a drama directed and produced by the same team, with an all-Navajo cast ==References== Category:2004 documentary films Category:2004 films Category:American independent films Category:Navajo- language films Category:Films about Native Americans Category:Documentary films about Native Americans Category:Films set on the Navajo Nation Category:Films set in Arizona Category:Documentary films about drug addiction Category:2000s English-language films Category:2000s American films Category:2004 multilingual films Category:American multilingual films
G is the fourth studio album by the American singer Gerald Levert. It was originally scheduled to be released via EastWest Records on September 21, 1999, under the title Same 'Ol G, but was pushed back to March 7, 2000. The album peaked at number two on the US Top R&B;/Hip-Hop Albums and at number 8 on the Billboard 200. == Track listing == ==Charts== ===Weekly charts=== Chart (2000) Peak position ===Year-end charts=== Chart (2000) Position US Billboard 200 122 US Top R&B;/Hip-Hop Albums (Billboard) 24 ==Certifications== ==References== Category:1999 albums Category:Albums with cover art by Tony Duran Category:Gerald Levert albums Category:East West Records albums
G is the fourteenth studio album by King Creosote. It was released in 2001. ==Track listing== #Your Face #Two of a Kind #Missionary #Russian Sailor Shirts #S.E.P. #Once Was Lost #Now Who'd Believe It? #A Prairie Tale #Walk Tall #All I Ask #Once was Broken #Breaking Up... ==External links== *King Creosote: Music Category:2001 albums Category:King Creosote albums
G refers to several streetcar routes in Los Angeles, California that ran via Griffith Avenue. The lines were operated by the Los Angeles Railway from 1910 to 1946. ==History== The Grifith Avenue streetcar line opened on November 1, 1905, running from Temple Square via Main, 12th, Stanford, 14th, and Griffith. The line was combined with the Griffin Avenue line in 1910. The new service ran from Vernon and McKinley to Griffin and Montecito. It was briefly extended to Seville Avenue and Santa Ana Street in the south from 1919 to 1920, but was reverted to its original terminus. The line was given the designation G in 1921. The G line followed the same route through to Griffin until 1926 when that segment of track was taken over by the A-2 line. The Angeleno Heights Shuttle Line was absorbed into the service and served as the G's new north end. The following year the Edgeware Road and Douglas Avenue sections were transferred to the C line and the terminus cut back to Bellevue Avenue and Edgeware Road. By 1930 the terminus was again cut back to Sunset and Beaudry. In 1932 the northern section was again changed, with the Angeleno Heights segment of tracks transferred to the A line. The new route operated from Vernon and McKinley Avenues to Spring and Ord Streets via McKinley, 14th, Stanford, 12th, Main, Sunset, and Spring. The line ceased running through Downtown after February 1938, operating as a shuttle service on the south side from 12th and Stanford to Vernon and McKinley. Streetcar service ended on June 30, 1946. ==Sources== ==External links== * G Line Archives — Pacific Electric Railway Historical Society * Category:Los Angeles Railway routes Category:Railway services introduced in 1910 Category:1910 establishments in California Category:Railway services discontinued in 1946 Category:1946 disestablishments in California
The G Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown is an rapid transit service in the B Division of the New York City Subway. Its route emblem, or "bullet", is colored since it uses the IND Crosstown Line. The G operates at all times between Court Square in Long Island City, Queens, and Church Avenue in Kensington, Brooklyn, making local stops along its entire route. The G is the only non-shuttle service in the system that does not run within the borough of Manhattan. Since the 2000s, several improvements have been made to the G, including a route extension in Brooklyn and a full-route audit that identified solutions for issues on the G service. The G serves two stations in Queens: Court Square and 21st Street, which are both in Long Island City. Prior to 2010, it served all stations on the IND Queens Boulevard Line between Court Square and 71st Avenue in Forest Hills. In 1939 and 1940, the then-designated GG also used the now- demolished IND World's Fair Line to access the 1939 New York World's Fair. The GG, which became the G in 1985, had its southern terminal at Smith–Ninth Streets from 1976 to 2009. ==History== === Early service === The original Brooklyn–Queens Crosstown Local service began on August 19, 1933, as a shuttle between Queens Plaza on the IND Queens Boulevard Line and Nassau Avenue. This service was designated GG because the IND used double letters to indicate local service. Starting on April 24, 1937, GG trains were extended to Forest Hills–71st Avenue during rush hours, serving as the Queens Boulevard local while trains ran express west of 71st Avenue. The entire IND Crosstown Line was completed on July 1, 1937, including the connection to the IND Culver Line (then the South Brooklyn Line) at Bergen Street. GG service ran at all times between Forest Hills–71st Avenue and Church Avenue. Soon after, it was cut back to Smith–Ninth Streets. From April 30 to November 1, 1939, and from May 11 to October 28, 1940, GG trains were extended via the temporary IND World's Fair Line to World's Fair Station at Horace Harding Boulevard at all times during the 1939-1940 World's Fair. Trains were marked as S Special. The fair closed on October 28, 1940, with the station and line being demolished later that year. As a result, GG service was truncated to Forest Hills–71st Avenue. Additional GG service was provided for the 1964 New York World's Fair, running nonstop between Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station and Roosevelt Avenue every 30 minutes between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. It took 23 minutes for trains to travel between the two stations. 64px The bullet used from 1967 to 1979 64px The bullet used from 1979 to 1985 On August 19, 1968, service was again extended to Church Avenue during rush hours to allow for the introduction of express service on the IND Culver Line. Since riders at local stations complained about the loss of direct service to Manhattan, F trains to and from Kings Highway began making local stops. All peak-direction F trains began running local on January 19, 1976. On August 30, 1976, due to budget cuts, remaining F express service north of Church Avenue was eliminated and GG service was cut back to Smith–Ninth Streets. On January 24, 1977, as part of a series of NYCTA service cuts to save $13 million, many subway lines began running shorter trains again during middays. As part of the change, GG trains began running with four cars between 9:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.. On August 27, 1977, GG service was cut back to Queens Plaza during late nights, and local service along Queens Boulevard was provided by the . Effective May 6, 1985, use of double letters to indicate local service was discontinued, so the GG was relabeled G. Afterwards, as part of the New York City Transit Authority's proposed service plan to serve the new Archer Avenue Line upper level, the G would have been extended to Jamaica Center during weekends and evenings when N trains terminated at 71st Avenue or 57th Street–Seventh Avenue. During late nights, a G train shuttle would have run between Jamaica Center and Van Wyck Boulevard. On weekdays, the extension would have been served by N trains. This service plan would have allowed E and F trains to remain on the Queens Boulevard mainline toward 179th Street. The final service plan, which took effect on December 11, 1988, had the extension served by E trains, with R trains extended to 179th Street. On May 24, 1987, the and services switched terminals in Queens. As part of the reroute plan, Queens Plaza became the northern terminal for the G train on evenings, weekends, and late nights. Three years later, on September 30, 1990, G service was extended to 179th Street during late nights to replace the , which terminated at 36th Street and Fourth Avenue. On April 14, 1991, weekend service was extended from Queens Plaza to 71st Avenue. Weekend G service was cut back to Queens Plaza on July 26, 1992. === Recent changes === Beginning on March 23, 1997, G trains started terminating at Court Square on weekends. On August 30, 1997, late night service was permanently cut back from 179th Street to Court Square, with the F running local east of Queens Plaza replacing G service, meaning that the G only ran along the Queens Boulevard Line on weekdays. Evening service between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. was cut back from Queens Plaza to Court Square. On December 16, 2001, the 63rd Street Connector opened and Court Square became the northern terminal for the G train during weekdays, while G service was extended to Forest Hills–71st Avenue at all other times, which represented the reverse of the previous pattern. Service along the IND Queens Boulevard Line was replaced by the new train during weekdays. The G was to be truncated to Court Square at all times to make room for the V, but due to rider opposition it was cut back only on weekdays until 8:30 p.m. Four G trains in each direction ran to or from Church Avenue. The headway for weekday evening service increased from 12 minutes to 15 minutes, while the headway for rush hour and Saturday morning and afternoon service decreased from 10 minutes to 8 minutes. On April 27, 2003, Saturday morning and afternoon G service was decreased, with service running every 12 minutes instead of every 8 minutes, and Sunday afternoon service was decreased to run every 12 minutes instead of every 10 minutes. In addition, Saturday morning and afternoon G trains turned out of service at Fourth Avenue instead of Church Avenue. On July 5, 2009, the G was once again extended south at all times to Church Avenue. This was required for overhaul of the Culver Viaduct, which caused the express tracks at Smith–Ninth Streets and Fourth Avenue/Ninth Street—used to switch G trains between tracks after they terminated at Smith–Ninth Streets—to be temporarily taken out of service. This had several benefits. First, five stations previously served by only the F train had more frequent service. Additionally, riders from northern Brooklyn and Long Island City had a direct route to Kensington. Finally, since the Church Avenue terminal had four tracks to store terminating G trains, as opposed to only one storage track at Smith–9th Streets, this reduced delays on both services because terminating G trains could switch to the storage tracks without having to wait in the station for another train to leave, as had occurred at Smith–Ninth Street. On July 19, 2012, MTA officials made this extension permanent because it provided more direct connections between Kensington and north Brooklyn. Due to the MTA's financial crisis in the late 2000s, as well as continued capacity issues on the IND Queens Boulevard Line, the G was to be cut back from Forest Hills–71st Avenue to Court Square at all times beginning June 27, 2010. However, due to planned track repairs during the times the G normally ran on the Queens Boulevard Line, it ceased running on that line on April 19. In addition, train headways were increased, which inconvenienced about 201,000 weekly commuters since they had to wait longer for G trains. Flood waters from Hurricane Sandy caused significant damage to the Greenpoint Tubes under the Newtown Creek. Although the G was back in service days after the hurricane, the tube needed permanent repairs. To allow for these repairs, G service ran only between Nassau Avenue and Church Avenue for twelve weekends between July and December 2013. This schedule was also in effect daily between July 25 and September 2, 2014. ==Controversies== The G suffers from a wide range of issues that has resulted in complaints by people living along the route. Historically, it has connected only Brooklyn and Queens, resulting in many people thinking of the G as the subway system's "outcast" and the "unwanted drunk uncle everyone has." One reporter wrote of the G, "[Riders] need it because it goes where no other train does, but they hate that they need it." Compounding to the G "outcast" reputation, some of the G stations along the Crosstown Line are in bad shape. Since 2001, however, a series of service cuts and missing connections to other lines has worsened public opinion of the G. On December 16, 2001, the G northern terminus was cut back from Forest Hills to Court Square during weekdays, and since April 2010, this service pattern has applied at all times. This service pattern not only puts more ridership pressure on the E route—already one of the system's busiest before 2001—but also resulted in G trains' lengths being shortened by one third, from or 6 cars to or 4. In addition, between 2001 and 2010, weekend service along the G to Forest Hills had been intermittent, with frequent service changes due to "track work". The 2010 route reduction did increase service frequency on the remainder of the route. Finally, the G has few transfers to other services, with missing transfer points to the at Broadway and the at Fulton Street, as well as a lack of an ADA-accessible transfer to the at Court Square. ===63rd Street Connector service reductions=== When the connector to the IND 63rd Street Line from the IND Queens Boulevard Line was put into regular passenger service in December 2001, it not only introduced the new V service, but also allowed up to nine additional trains to and from Manhattan on the Queens Boulevard Line during peak hours. However, to make room for the V train on Queens Boulevard, the G had to terminate at Court Square on weekdays. The reroute of the G was part of the original plans of the 63rd Street tunnel and connector, going back to the late 1960s. The service plan was designed to redistribute Queens-bound passenger loads on the crowded IND Queens Boulevard Line, which ran under 53rd Street while in Manhattan. In turn, this plan was intended to bring better service and transfer opportunities, as the V train allowed direct access to 53rd Street and the IND Sixth Avenue Line for Queens Boulevard Local passengers who previously had to transfer to an express train at Queens Plaza. The New York Times prematurely described the service plan as "complex and heavily criticized" because it put more crowding on the E train. In response to complaints from G riders at public hearings about losing a major transfer point to Manhattan-bound trains at Queens Plaza, the MTA agreed to a number of compromises, including installing a moving sidewalk in the passageway between Court Square and 23rd Street–Ely Avenue (now served by the ) on the Queens Boulevard Line. In addition, a free out-of-system MetroCard transfer to 45th Road–Court House Square on the IRT Flushing Line was created at those two stations. This special transfer was discontinued on June 3, 2011, when an in- system transfer opened at the corner of 23rd Street and 45th Road, which made only the Flushing Line station ADA-accessible. The MTA provided $17 million in funding for making the Crosstown Line accessible as part of the 2015–2019 Capital Program. The MTA also agreed to extend the G to Forest Hills–71st Avenue during evenings and weekends (when the V was not running), and run more trains on that route. There was a four-hour period where the G, , and V, as well as the Queens Boulevard line's express services, the E and the F, were all running at once since the V stopped running at midnight and the G was extended to 71st Avenue at 8:00 p.m. The authority "had spent several hundred thousand dollars on tests, trying to figure out a way to keep the G train running past Court Square and farther into Queens on weekdays, but because of the addition of the V train, which shared space along the Queens Boulevard Line with the trains already there (the E, F and R trains), G trains could not fit during the daytime, when service is heaviest." However, due to construction on the Queens Boulevard Line, the G train frequently terminated at Court Square even when the published timetable said it ran to 71st Avenue. Some riders were suspicious that the service disruptions were "simply a de facto way to implement the original plan of halving G train service." The original plans called for the G terminate at Court Square at all times; that plan was shelved in 2001 in the face of community opposition, but due to budget cuts, the MTA decided to implement it in 2010. An MTA spokesman said, "It's not personal…. If you want to keep the system up to date, you need to make sure the track and switching are all in good repair." Community groups such as Save the G! and the Riders Alliance have been frequent activists for improvements of G service. Save the G! regularly lobbied the MTA for more G train service since the original cutbacks when the V was introduced in 2001. They made the restoration of service to the Queens Boulevard Line at all times an issue in the 2002 New York gubernatorial race, but the transit authority said, "Unfortunately, putting the G back to full service is just not an option, given our track capacity—and that's not likely to change." === Changes to train length === To increase service and reduce waiting time due to the 63rd Street Connector cutbacks, the G would need more trains, but there were not enough cars available in the system. The solution was to reduce the length of trains in order to increase service frequency. Previously, the G service had run 8 car trains or 6 car trains; both were shorter than the typical length of B Division trains because ridership was deemed too low to justify running full-length G trains in frequent intervals. Under the 2001 plan, trains were shortened from six cars to four, sticking all the leftover cars together to make the extra trains for the G, and the additional trains needed for V service. Thus, G service now operates trains, half the length of normal B Division standards. It also operates One Person Train Operation (OPTO) service during late nights and weekends. This, however, meant that riders would be packed into smaller trains, and led some passengers to miss trains because they were standing at the wrong part of the platform. In the past, there have been signs indicating where the train stops at some stations, in addition to the "4" and "6" markers next to the tracks used by train operators as stop points. Still, the overall lack of visual identifiers of train stop points on the platforms, the differing stop points during different times of day, and the location of staircases, transfer passageways and platform benches have been cited as a cause of passengers missing trains or being bunched into single cars. Beginning in 2013, additional signs were installed along G train platforms. In 2014, several improvements were implemented due to an infusion of extra funding, with G trains to be lengthened in 2019 (see below). ===Non- free transfers=== Save the G!, the Riders Alliance, and other organizations have also lobbied for the creation of new free out-of-system transfers to nearby stations. The most prominent is between Broadway on the Crosstown Line and either Hewes Street or Lorimer Street on the BMT Jamaica Line, which are both about three blocks away; this transfer has been previously proposed. In 2005, an MTA spokesperson stated, "We have no intention of making that a permanent free transfer." This sentiment was repeated in 2013, with the MTA citing the loss of around $770,000 in revenue if the transfer were to become free. Temporary free transfers have been provided in the past, including one to Lorimer Street in 1999 due to suspended service over the Williamsburg Bridge on the , and again during the Summer 2014 G service suspension north of Nassau Avenue. A second transfer, from Fulton Street to the busy Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center complex in Downtown Brooklyn, was rejected by the MTA due to the long walking distance between the two stations, as well as the fact that there is a transfer to Manhattan-bound trains at Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets. A temporary transfer between Broadway and Hewes Street or Lorimer Street (along the BMT Jamaica Line) was reinstated in April 2019 due to L train service changes associated with the 14th Street Tunnel shutdown. The transfer was in effect until May 31, 2020. A temporary, MetroCard-only transfer between 21st Street and Hunters Point Avenue (along the IRT Flushing Line) was proposed, but not implemented. == Improvements == ===2000s improvements=== Most stations along the IND Crosstown Line were built with multiple exits to the street. Over the years, many lower-use exits were closed (as they were in other parts of the subway), as the city was concerned that they were a magnet for criminals; this resulted in G trains along the Crosstown Line needing to stop at the locations closest to the exits. However, in July 2005, in response to community pressure, the MTA agreed to re-open an exit to the southwestern corner of South Portland Avenue to the southbound platform of the Fulton Street station. The New York Times described it as a "minor victory" for "a maligned line." Additionally, exits to the intersection of Powers Street, Hope Street, and Union Avenue at Metropolitan Avenue were reopened on February 28, 2019, to address possible capacity constraints due to the L train shutdown. In 2019, the Court Square station received several new stairways to accommodate increased ridership from L train riders during the reconstruction of the BMT Canarsie Line tunnels under the East River, which started in late April 2019. The G train's southern extension to Church Avenue, implemented in 2009 and confirmed permanently in 2012, was also seen as a service improvement. It reduced the need for riders from Park Slope and Kensington to make multiple train transfers to get to northern Brooklyn and Long Island City. ===Review of the G route=== In 2013, at the request of State Senators Daniel Squadron and Martin Malave Dilan, the MTA conducted a review of the entire G route. The route had been maligned by riders because of its unreliability, and the review recommended a few service changes for the G. On June 9, 2014, a budget surplus in the MTA allowed these improvements to be implemented. These improvements included an increase in the number of trains per hour, from six to trains per hour during evening rush hour; uniform stopping locations for trains, whereas previously, trains stopped at different places along the platform at different times of the day; public service announcement systems on platforms along the IND Crosstown Line; relocated benches; and new CCTV systems installed for OPTO. Such improvements eliminated the infamous "G train sprint," wherein riders ran for G trains that stopped at the other end of the platforms. From 2010 to 2015, ridership on the G has risen 17%, with approximately 150,000 riders per weekday in 2015. It is the route with the fastest growing ridership base in the entire system. These improvements will also have the additional benefit of being able to accommodate the growing ridership base in gentrified neighborhoods along the line, like Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Bedford–Stuyvesant, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Long Island City. This is due in part to the G weekday frequencies having become more dependable as a result of the 2013 review. Even so, the G continued to have long headways during weekends. ===L train shutdown=== Despite the influx of ridership, train lengths did not change. However, in 2016, it was announced that the G was expected to receive longer trains to accommodate displaced L train riders in 2019, when the 14th Street Tunnel shutdown was supposed to limit direct L train access to Manhattan. As a result, riders in Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Bushwick would need to use the G to transfer to other subway routes that travel to Manhattan. The delivery of new R179 subway cars to other routes would make it possible for older fleets from these other routes to be passed onto the G. In addition, three extra G trains per hour would run during peak periods, for a total of 11 trains per hour during the shutdown. A full-length G train would run every five to six minutes, more than doubling the route's total capacity. Since the G train's schedule is designed around that of the F train, train frequencies on both routes would have to be modified. In July 2018, the MTA published a report stating that the G route would have 15 full-length trains per hour between Court Square and Bedford–Nostrand Avenues, or a rate of one train every four minutes. South of Bedford–Nostrand Avenues, the G would have a headway of 12 trains per hour. The terminus for most of the remaining G trips would be Church Avenue, but some trains would continue two additional stops to 18th Avenue, because only a limited number of trains can terminate at Church Avenue without causing disruptions to F service. Other temporary improvements during the L train shutdown would include free-out-of-system transfers between the G at Broadway and the at Lorimer Street and Hewes Street, as well as between the G at 21st Street and the at Hunters Point Avenue. In addition, closed entrances would be reopened at Metropolitan Avenue, and the Nassau Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue stations' fare control areas would be reconfigured to accommodate increased ridership. The L train shutdown was curtailed in January 2019. Instead of being a full-time closure, it would only be a partial closure on nights and weekends. However, the station enhancements along the route were still implemented. The following month, the MTA decided that the G would not receive full-length trains, though it would still see an increase in train frequencies during nights and weekends. ===CBTC signaling=== In December 2022, the MTA announced that it would award a $368 million design–build contract to Crosstown Partners, a joint venture between Thales Group and TC Electric LLC, to install communications-based train control (CBTC) along the length of the G route. The contract includes not only the Crosstown Line between Court Square and Bergen Street, but also the Culver Line between Bergen Street and Church Avenue. Upon the completion of the contract, the G would be one of three routes in the system to be entirely equipped with CBTC. ==Route== ===Service pattern=== The G uses the following lines with the same service pattern at all times. Line From To Tracks IND Crosstown Line Court Square Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets all IND Culver Line Bergen Street Church Avenue local ===Stations=== For a more detailed station listing, see the articles on the lines listed above. 20px|G service Stations Subway transfers Connections Queens Crosstown Line 20px|alt=Elevator access to mezzanine only (IRT Flushing Line) (IND Queens Boulevard Line at ) LIRR City Terminal Zone at (peak hours only) Brooklyn NYC Ferry: East River Route (at India Street west of West Street) (BMT Canarsie Line at ) B44 Select Bus Service 20px|alt=Elevator access to mezzanine only (IND Fulton Street Line) Culver Line (BMT Fourth Avenue Line at ) == In popular culture == The G train is shown in the TV series Girls, as the show's main character, Hannah, lives in Greenpoint (near a stop along the G) and sometimes uses the route. The G train is also the subject of the song "G Train" by Thirdstory, featuring Pusha T. ==See also== * Triboro RX ==Notes== ==References== ==External links== * MTA NYC Transit – G Brooklyn-Queens Crosstown Local * * * MTA NYC Transit – "NYC Transit G LINE REVIEW" ** Main document ** Appendix – service statistics and proposed improvements. Also includes track diagrams, station layouts, and rolling stock. # Category:New York City Subway services
G: Material zur elementaren Gestaltung (Materials for Elementary Construction) was a constructivist magazine published between 1923 and 1926 by Hans Richter. Five issues were produced, with El Lissitzky and Werner Graeff supporting him on the editorial board for the first issue. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Frederick John Kiesler joined the board on subsequent issues. ==Issue 1== In Issue 1, they stated that their task was "to clarify the general situation of art and life." They reproduced extracts from the Realistic Manifesto by Antoine Pevsner and Naum Gabo. ==References== Category:Magazines established in 1923 Category:Magazines disestablished in 1926 Category:German-language magazines Category:Visual arts magazines published in Germany Category:Defunct magazines published in Germany
Sol, so, or G is the fifth note of the fixed-do solfège starting on C. It is the fifth note and the eighth semitone of the solfège. As such it is the dominant, a perfect fifth above C or perfect fourth below C. When calculated in equal temperament with a reference of A above middle C as 440 Hz, the frequency of middle G (G4) note is approximately 391.995 Hz. See pitch for a discussion of historical variations in frequency. It has enharmonic equivalents of F (F-double sharp) and A (A-double flat). ==Designation by octave== Scientific designation Helmholtz designation Octave name Frequency (Hz) G−1 G͵͵͵ or ͵͵͵G or GGGG Subsubcontra G0 G͵͵ or ͵͵G or GGG Subcontra G1 G͵ or ͵G or GG Contra G2 G Great G3 g Small G4 g′ One-lined G5 g′′ Two-lined G6 g′′′ Three-lined G7 g′′′′ Four-lined G8 g′′′′′ Five-lined G9 g′′′′′′ Six- lined G10 g′′′′′′′ Seven-lined ==Scales== ===Common scales beginning on G=== * G major: G A B C D E F G * G natural minor: G A B C D E F G * G harmonic minor: G A B C D E F G * G melodic minor ascending: G A B C D E F G * G melodic minor descending: G F E D C B A G ===Diatonic scales=== * G Ionian: G A B C D E F G * G Dorian: G A B C D E F G * G Phrygian: G A B C D E F G * G Lydian: G A B C D E F G * G Mixolydian: G A B C D E F G * G Aeolian: G A B C D E F G * G Locrian: G A B C D E F G ===Jazz melodic minor=== * G ascending melodic minor: G A B C D E F G * G Dorian ♭2: G A B C D E F G * G Lydian augmented: G A B C D E F G * G Lydian dominant: G A B C D E F G * G Mixolydian ♭6: G A B C D E F G * G Locrian ♮2: G A B C D E F G * G Altered: G A B C D E F G ==In popular culture== It is the first note of the 2006 song "Welcome to the Black Parade" by My Chemical Romance, which made the note a meme. ==See also== * Piano key frequencies * G major * G minor * Root (chord) ==References== Category:Musical notes
G 1/03 and G 2/03 100px Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued April 8, 2004 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Peter Messerli Members: R. Teschemacher, C. Andries, G. Davies, B. Jestaedt, A. Nuss, J.-C. Saisset G 1/03 and G 2/03 are two decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which were both issued on April 8, 2004. The decisions, which are identical, relate to the allowability of introducing disclaimers during the prosecution of a European patent application or during opposition proceedings relating to a granted European patent. More precisely, they relate to whether and under which circumstances an amendment introducing a negative limitation to a claim is allowable, when neither the negative limitation nor the subject-matter excluded by it from the scope of the claim have a basis in the application as filed (). == Decision == The Board ruled that introducing a disclaimer which has no basis in the application as filed may be allowable in order to: # restore novelty by delimiting a claim against state of the art under , i.e. against a novelty-destroying conflicting application (a first European patent application is said to be a "conflicting application" when it was filed before the effective date of filing of a second European patent application, but when this first application was published only after the effective date of filing of the second application); # restore novelty by delimiting a claim against an accidental anticipation under , where an anticipation is said to be accidental if it is so unrelated to and remote from the claimed invention that the person skilled in the art would never have taken it into consideration when making the invention; and # disclaim subject- matter which, under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, is excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons. (Headnote of the decision, item II.1) The Board however set out stringent criteria for their application (which have later led to many disclaimers being found inadmissible): * "a disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary either to restore novelty or to disclaim subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons"; (Headnote, item II.2) * "a disclaimer which is or becomes relevant for the assessment of inventive step or sufficiency of disclosure adds subject-matter contrary to "; and (Headnote, item II.3) * "a claim containing a disclaimer must meet the requirements of clarity and conciseness of ". (Headnote, item II.4) Decisions G 1/03 and G 2/03 only apply to "undisclosed disclaimers", i.e. disclaimers which are not disclosed in the application as filed. The framework of these decisions is limited to "(originally) undisclosed disclaimers".Decision T 0154/06 of 11 January 2008, Reasons 4. See also "Part 3 of 3" 2:15 to 2:33 minutes in. == See also == * Amendments under the European Patent Convention == References == == Further resources == * *: "Patent protection for technical inventions" *: "Avoiding the exclusion of methods of treatment by surgery from patent protection under - disclaimer" *: "Determining the disclosure of the relevant prior art - accidental disclosure" *: "Sufficiency of disclosure - introduction" *: "Parts of the application relevant for assessing sufficiency of disclosure - alleged effect not a feature of the claims" *: "Clarity and completeness of disclosure - indication of at least 'one way'" *: "Clarity and completeness of disclosure - invention to be performed over whole range claimed" *: "Ambiguous parameters - essential parameters" *: "Reproducibility - repeatability" *: "Reproducibility - post-published documents" *: "Level of disclosure required for medical use – plausibility - principles established by the case law" *: "Level of disclosure required for antibodies" *: "G 2/98 and the concept of disclosure – interpretation in the same way as for " *: "Enabling disclosure in the priority document" *: "First application in respect of the invention - identity of invention" *: "Multiple priorities or partial priority for one claim - application of G 1/15 in the jurisprudence of the boards" *: " – added subject-matter - general principles" *: "Selections from two lists – singling out a combination of features - principles" *: "Disclaimers - definition" *: "Disclaimers - standards for examining disclosed and undisclosed disclaimers" *: "Disclaimers - standards for examining disclosed and undisclosed disclaimers - principles established in G 1/03 and G 2/03 for undisclosed disclaimers" *: "Disclaimers - standards for examining disclosed and undisclosed disclaimers - principles established in G 2/10 for disclosed disclaimers" *: "Disclaimers - standards for examining disclosed and undisclosed disclaimers - explanations in G 1/16" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - accidental anticipation" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - accidental anticipation - disclosure of the interfering document not novelty destroying" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - accidental anticipation - disclaimer covered more than what was disclosed in the prior art" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – delimitation against any potential prior art" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – clarity" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – clarity - disclaimer excluding treatment by surgery or therapy" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – clarity - hiding a disclaimer" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – clarity - interpretation of terms" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – clarity - disclaimer removing more than strictly necessary to restore novelty for clarity reasons" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – undisclosed disclaimer must not relate to the teaching of the invention" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – positive features – G 1/03 not applicable" *: "Disclaimers - decisions applying the criteria established by the Enlarged Board in G 1/03 and G 1/16 - drafting of disclaimers – negative feature implicitly disclosed in original application – G 1/03 not applicable" *: "Disclaimers - applicability of the decisions of the enlarged board to cases already pending" *: "Disclaimers - no analogy with G 1/03 where a disclaimer already in the application as filed is deleted" *: " – added subject-matter - "comprises", "consists of", "consists essentially of", "contains"" *: "Relationship between and - attempts to resolve the conflict - general" *: "Legitimate expectation and case law - case law deviating from or overruling the practice" *: "Application of the rules of interpretation - teleological interpretation" *: "Formal requirements - anonymously filed observations" *: "Exceptions to the prohibition of reformatio in peius - undisclosed disclaimer" == External links == * Decisions on the "EPO boards of appeal decisions" section of the EPO web site: ** G 1/03, ** G 2/03, * G 2003 1 and G 2003 1 Category:2004 in case law Category:2004 in Europe
G 1/05 and G 1/06 100px Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued 28 June 2007 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Peter Messerli Members: S. Perryman, P. Alting Van Geusau, B. Günzel, C. Holtz, A. Nuss, Sir N. Pumfrey G 1/05 and G 1/06 are decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) that were issued on 28 June 2007 and answer questions relating to divisional applications under the European Patent Convention (EPC). The two decisions were published in the Official Journal of the EPO in May 2008.EPO web site, Official Journal of the EPO, Year 31, Number 5, Pages 271 - 325. == Background == Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC states that a divisional application :"may be filed only in respect of subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed; in so far as this provision is complied with, the divisional application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application and shall have the benefit of any right to priority." == Questions == Two similar sets of legal questions have been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal and have been considered by the Board in consolidated proceedings.G 1/05, Summary of Facts and Submissions I. to III. In case T 39/03, Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (considered under case number G 1/05): :"(1) Can a divisional application which does not meet the requirements of because, at its actual filing date, it extends beyond the content of the earlier application, be amended later in order to make it a valid divisional application? :(2) If the answer to question (1) is yes, is this still possible when the earlier application is no longer pending? :(3) If the answer to question (2) is yes, are there any further limitations of substance to this possibility beyond those imposed by Articles 76(1) and 123(2) EPC? Can the corrected divisional application in particular be directed to aspects of the earlier application not encompassed by those to which the divisional as filed had been directed?" G 1/05, Summary of Facts and Submissions I. In case T 1409/05, Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03 referred the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (considered under case number G 1/06): :"(1) In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, is it a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1) EPC, second sentence, that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly, unambiguously and separately derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed? :(2) If the above condition is not sufficient, does said sentence impose the additional requirement ::(a) that the subject-matter of the claims of said divisional be nested within the subject-matter of the claims of its divisional predecessors? or ::(b) that all the divisional predecessors of said divisional comply with Article 76(1) EPC?" G 1/05, Summary of Facts and Submissions II. == Reasoning == The Enlarged Board of Appeal held that non-compliance of a patent application with a substantive requirement for grant, such as the requirement regarding the content of a divisional application when filed,The requirement of . does not cause the application to be "invalid", but only leads to its refusal The refusal under . "if the deficiency is incurable or is not removed by amendment".G 1/05, Reasons 2.4. Such non-compliance "cannot raise an automatic presumption that the application is to be refused without any prior possibility of amendment (...)."G 1/05, Reasons 3.4. The Board further held that Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC had a double purpose: # preventing applicants from putting into a divisional application new matter which could be objectionable under national security considerations, and # setting up the substantive requirement for the patentability of divisional applications that they may not contain added matter in relation to their parent application,G 1/05, Reasons 2.7. and that none of these purposes justified the invalidity of a divisional application on the grounds that it would, on filing, extend beyond the content of the earlier application.G 1/05, Reasons 2.9. Divisional applications are to be treated in the same manner as ordinary applications and subject to the same requirements, unless specific provisions of the EPC require something different.G 1/05, Reasons 3.1. In other words, a divisional application is a new application which is separate and independent from the parent application, if not specifically provided otherwise.G 1/05, Reasons 8.1 and 9.1. Regarding the sequences of divisional applications, the Board held that: :"according the filing date of the first disclosure of the subject- matter concerned in the root application is only justified if the said subject-matter was disclosed in each of the preceding (earlier) applications as filed and if it was still present in each earlier predecessor application at the time the - further - divisional application was filed (...)."G 1/05, Reasons 11.2. == Decisions == The Enlarged Board eventually decided in G 1/05 that: : (1) "a divisional application which at its actual date of filing contains subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed can be amended later in order that its subject-matter no longer so extends", : (2) this applies "even at a time when the earlier application is no longer pending", and : (3) "furthermore, the same limitations apply to these amendments as to amendments to any other (non- divisional) applications."G 1/05, Order (page 46). In G1/06, the Board answered to the question (1) in the affirmative:G 1/05, Reasons 14. : "In the case of a sequence of applications consisting of a root (originating) application followed by divisional applications, each divided from its predecessor, it is a necessary and sufficient condition for a divisional application of that sequence to comply with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC that anything disclosed in that divisional application be directly and unambiguously derivable from what is disclosed in each of the preceding applications as filed."G 1/06, Order (page 46). The whole contents of each preceding divisional application in a sequence may be included in a new divisional application and an applicant is not restricted only to subject matter that was encompassed by the claims of a preceding divisional. In reaching this decision, the EBA confirmed that subject matter which was omitted on filing one member in a sequence of divisional applications cannot be reintroduced later and, conversely, that subject matter which was introduced on filing one member in the sequence cannot be maintained. ==Suggestions to the legislator== The EBA also considered some additional issues of fairness to third parties in relation to divisional applications: :"The Board finds it unsatisfactory that sequences of divisional applications each containing the same broad disclosures of the original patent application, by means of at least an unamended description, should be pending for up to twenty years. If administrative measures, such as giving priority to the examination of divisional applications and bundling and speedily deciding copending divisional applications so as to minimize the possibility for applicants to keep alive subject-matter on which the Examining Division had already given a negative opinion in one application by means of refiling the same subject-matter again and again, are not adequate, it would be for the legislator to consider where there are abuses and what the remedy could be."G 1/05, Reasons 13.5. ==See also== *Divisional patent application ==References== ==External links== *G 1/05, *G 1/06, *Decision T 39/03 of 26 August 2005 (referring decision) *Decision T 1409/05 (Sequence of divisionals/SEIKO) of 30 March 2006 (referring decision) G 2005 1 and G 2006 1 Category:2007 in case law Category:2007 in Europe
G 1/07 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued February 15, 2010 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Peter Messerli Members: B. Günzel, P. Alting van Geusau, U. Kinkeldey, S. Perryman, A. Pézard, J.-P. Seitz G 1/07 is a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was issued on February 15, 2010. The Enlarged Board of Appeal notably decided that, under the European Patent Convention (EPC), :"[a] claimed imaging method, in which, when carried out, maintaining the life and health of the subject is important and which comprises and encompasses an invasive step representing a substantial physical intervention on the body which requires medical expertise to be carried out and which entails a substantial health risk even when carried out with required professional care and expertise, is excluded from patentability as a method for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery pursuant to ."G 1/07, headnote 1. == References == == External links == * Decision G 1/07, * G 2007 1 Category:Surgery Category:2010 in case law Category:2010 in Europe
G 1/09 is a decision issued on 27 September 2010 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that, following refusal of a European patent application, the application remains pending until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, so that a divisional application under may be filed even after the refusal of an application. See section 1.3. See section II.1. More specifically, the divisional application may be filed until expiry of the time limit of two months for filing a notice of appeal under . ==Background== In the European Patent Convention (EPC), provides for the possibility for applicants to file a divisional application based on a European patent application. The European patent application based on which the divisional is filed is then called the "parent application". In accordance with , a divisional application can only be filed when the parent application is still pending.: "Pendency of the earlier application" However, the EPC does not define the concept of "pendency" of a European patent application. The question therefore arose as to whether a European patent application is still pending after the application has been refused. According to the EPO practice before G 1/09, a divisional application could no longer be filed after the application had been refused, i.e. after the date of notification () of the decision of refusal in written or oral proceedings. ==Referral== The referral lies from interlocutory decision J 2/08Decision J 2/08 (Pending application/SONY) of 27 May 2009 by the Legal Board of Appeal (i.e. Board 3.1.01). In the case underlying J 2/08, the applicant had filed a divisional application between the announcement of the decision on refusal at the oral proceedings and the notification of the written decision, without filing an appeal against the refusal. The EPO's Receiving Section refused to allocate the filing date of the parent application to the divisional, and, in appeal, the Legal Board of Appeal, confronted with that situation, decided to refer the matter to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The referred question was: ==Answer to the referred question== In its answer to the referred question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that "[i]n the case where no appeal is filed, a European patent application which has been refused by a decision of the Examining Division is thereafter pending within the meaning of Rule 25 EPC 1973 (Rule 36(1) EPC) until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal." Although the operative part of the Enlarged Board of Appeal decision is limited to a refusal by the Examining Division, nothing else can apply in the case of a refusal by the Receiving Section. See section II.1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal based its decision, inter alia, on its finding that a "pending" European patent application within the meaning of () refers to a patent application "in a status in which substantive rights deriving therefrom under the EPC are (still) in existence".G 1/09, point 3.2.4, emphasis by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. : "Requirement of pending earlier application" According to , substantive rights continue to exist until the European patent application was "finally refused", and, according to generally recognised principles of procedural law, a decision only becomes final, i.e. it only becomes res judicata, when the time limit for appeal has expired.G 1/09, point 4.2.2. ===Obiter dictum=== The Enlarged Board also confirmed, in an obiter dictum, the established practice of the EPO that a divisional application under Article 76 EPC may be filed until the day preceding the date of publication of the mention of grant of a patent in the European Patent Bulletin, but "normally"G 1/09, point 4.3.2. no longer on the date of publication of the mention of grant. See section II.2. : "Pendency in case of refusal of earlier application against which no appeal was filed" == Analysis == The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal simplifies the applicant's life in case of a refusal of a European patent application. Indeed, if the applicant does not wish to challenge the decision of refusal of the parent application, but wants to pursue another subject matter through a divisional application, the applicant no longer needs to lodge and substantiate an appeal for purely formal reasons, only to keep a time window open for filing a divisional application. == References == == Further reading == * * * * : "Filing a divisional application during stay of the proceedings" * : "Requirement of pending earlier application sets no time limit" * : "Pendency before the EPO acting as patent-granting authority according to the EPC" * : "Pendency in case of grant of earlier application against which no appeal was filed" * : "Pendency in case of grant of earlier application against which an appeal was filed" * : "Pendency in case of refusal of earlier application against which an appeal was filed" * : "Pendency in case of deemed withdrawal of earlier application and request for re-establishment" * : "Further processing under " * : "Requirement of pendency when filing divisional application is not a time limit" * : " - General" * : "Relevance of the referred question for the underlying case" == External links == * Decision G 1/09, Official Journal EPO 5/2011, 336 (ECLI:EP:BA:2010:G000109.20100927) * Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 27 September 2010 G 1/09, Official Journal EPO 5/2011, 336 * Decision J 2/08 (Pending application/SONY) of 27 May 2009 (referring decision) G 2009 1 Category:2010 in case law Category:2010 in Europe
G 1/10 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued 23 July 2012 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Wim Van der Eijk Members: C. Rennie-Smith, B. Günzel, A. G. Klein, R. Menapace, U. Oswald, G. Weiss G 1/10 is a decision issued on 23 July 2012 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that cannot be used to request corrections of the text of a European patent. ==Overview== The referral lies from interlocutory decision T 1145/09Decision T 1145/09 (Stay of proceedings/FISHER-ROSEMOUNT) of 17 June 2010 by Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03, who referred two questions to the Enlarged Board. The first question was: The second question was: In its answer to the first question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that "since is not available to correct the text of a patent, a patent proprietor's request for such a correction is inadmissible whenever made, including after the initiation of opposition proceedings." In its answer to the second question, it ruled that "in view of the answer to the first referred question, the second referred question requires no answer." == See also == * Amendments under the European Patent Convention == References == == Further reading == *: "Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings after grant, and in opposition proceedings" *: "Scope of " *: "Correction of the text of a patent" *: "Correction requests as opposed to appeals" *: "Decisions with no text submitted or agreed by the applicant () - deemed approval under " *: "Amendments after the decision to grant" *: "Admissibility of amendments - principles" *: "Admissibility of amendments - removal of error (in claim) in opposition proceedings " == External links == * Decision G 1/10, Official Journal EPO 4/2013, 194 () *Decision T 1145/09 (Stay of proceedings/FISHER- ROSEMOUNT) of 17 June 2010 (referring decision) G 2010 1 Category:2012 in case law Category:2012 in Europe
G 1/11 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued 19 March 2014 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Wim Van der Eijk Members: A. Klein, R. Menapace, C. Rennie-Smith, M.-B. Tardo-Dino, U. Oswald, M. Vogel G 1/11 is a decision issued on 19 March 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that a Technical Board of Appeal rather than the Legal Board of Appeal is competent for an appeal against a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request for refund of a search fee under , which has not been taken together with a decision granting a European patent or refusing a European patent application. In other words, the decision deals with the delimitation of competence between the EPO's Legal Board of Appeal and its Technical Boards of Appeal. (see section 1.1.2) ==Background== Pursuant to , appeals at the EPO that deal with technical issues are handled by technical boards of appeal whereas appeals dealing with legal issues are handled by the Legal Board of Appeal. (referring to G 1/11, especially reasons 9 and 13) According to Derk Visser however, "[t]he formulation of Art.21(3) EPC in terms of procedure instead of expertise of the boards has resulted in a complicated provision including gaps (...), the interpretation of which has required a large number of decisions of boards of appeals". In the proceedings that led to referral G 1/11, the applicant of a European patent application had paid four further search fees after the Search Division of the EPO had drawn up a partial search report (because the Search Division had found that the application lacked unity of invention). The applicant then requested their reimbursement under because, in the applicant's view, the Search Division had wrongly held that the application lacked unity. The Examining Division, which then became competent, rejected the applicant's request, and the applicant appealed the rejection. The appeal was assigned to a Technical Board of Appeal, which opted to transfer the case to the Legal Board of Appeal. The Legal Board of Appeal then referred, in its decision J 21/09, the question of its alleged competence (or not) for this issue of refund of search fees to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under . ==Question== Thus, the referral to the Enlarged Board lies from decision J 21/09Decision J 21/09 (Zuständigkeit der Juristischen Beschwerdekammer/BAUER MASCHINEN GMBH) of 1 August 2011 by the Legal Board of Appeal. The referred question was: ==Answer to the referred question== In its answer to the referred question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that "a technical board of appeal is competent to hear an appeal against an EPO examining division's decision – taken separately from its decision granting a patent or refusing the application – not to refund search fees under ." In the underlying reasons, the Enlarged Board of Appeal explained "that the Boards of Appeal should have a composition which enables them to decide all technical matters relevant to the decision with their own expertise, without calling in external experts."Teschemacher, Rudolf (2014) - Translation of "(...) dass die Beschwerdekammern eine Zusammensetzung aufweisen, die es ihnen ermöglicht, alle entscheidungserheblichen technischen Sachverhalte mit eigenem Sachverstand, ohne Heranziehung externer Sachverständiger entscheiden zu können." By doing so, the Enlarged Board of Appeal in effect closed a gap in law by assigning these cases to the Technical Boards of Appeal.Teschemacher, Rudolf (2014) - Source: "(...) so dass eine planwidrige Gesetzeslücke vorliege. Diese wird von der Kammer im Weg der Zuweisung dieser Fälle an die Technischen Beschwerdekammern geschlossen." According to Rudolf Teschmacher, the lacuna in the law closed by G 1/11 had been known for a long time, and could in fact have been solved in a dogmatically more convincing way by the legislator of the EPC 2000, the diplomatic conference of member states who revised the European Patent Convention (EPC).Teschemacher, Rudolf (2014) - Source: "Freilich hätte das schon lange bekannte Problem dogmatisch überzeugender durch den Gesetzgeber des EPÜ 2000 gelöst werden können." == See also == * Jurisdiction == References == == Further reading == * (publication of decision G 1/11 in this law journal) * (publication of decision G 1/11 in this law journal) * : "Board competent to hear a case - specific cases - request for a search-fee refund" == External links == * Decision G 1/11, Official Journal EPO 12/2014, A122 () *Decision J 21/09 (Zuständigkeit der Juristischen Beschwerdekammer/BAUER MASCHINEN GMBH) of 1 August 2011 (referring decision) G 2011 1 Category:2014 in case law Category:2014 in Europe Category:Jurisdiction
G 1/12 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued 30 April 2014 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Wim Van der Eijk Members: T. Kriner, R. Menapace, C. Rennie-Smith, U. Oswald, A. Pézard, M. Vogel, G. Weiss G 1/12 is a decision issued on 30 April 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that an appellant's identity in a notice of appeal can be corrected under , provided the requirements of are met. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also held that an appellant's identity can be corrected under , first sentence, under the conditions established by the case law of the Boards of Appeal. (see section 1.1.1) ==Background== The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the EPO. The appeal procedure before the EPO is a judicial procedure proper to an administrative court,"In decision G 1/99 (OJ 2001, 381) the Enlarged Board held that the appeal procedure is to be considered as a judicial procedure (see G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408, point 18 of the Reasons) proper to an administrative court (see G 8/91, OJ 1993, 346, point 7 of the Reasons; likewise G 7/91, OJ 1993, 356)." in : "Legal character of appeal procedure" > "General". and the EPO Boards of Appeal have been recognised as courts, or tribunals, of an international organisation, the EPO.G 2/06, Reasons 4, Official Journal EPO 5/2009 page 318 par. 4: "Whereas EPO Boards of Appeal have been recognized as being courts or tribunals, they are not courts or tribunals of an EU member state but of an international organization whose contracting states are not all members of the EU." When an appeal is lodged, the notice of appeal has to contain specific information including "the name and the address of the appellant", "an indication of the decision impugned", and "a request defining the subject of the appeal".; see also . The question has arisen as to whether the name of the appellant could be corrected after filing the notice of appeal, and questions have been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under in that regard. ==Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal== The referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal lies from an interlocutory decision T 445/08Decision T 445/08 of 30 January 2012 from Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07. The referred questions were: ==Answers to the referred questions== The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered these questions as follows: This means that the flexible approach adopted in earlier decision T 97/98 has been confirmed. Namely, the name of the appellant may be corrected to substitute another natural or legal person for the person indicated in the notice of appeal if the real intention was to file the appeal in the name of that person. == Practical aspects == As to answer (3), point 37 of the reasons for the decision G 1/12 provides practical guidance on how to correct an Appellant's identity under , first sentence. The correction must at least satisfy the following requirements: (a) The correction must introduce what was originally intended. (b) Where the original intention is not immediately apparent, the requester bears the burden of proof, which must be a heavy one. (c) The error to be remedied may be an incorrect statement or an omission. (d) The request for correction must be filed without delay. As to requirement (d), a decision T180/14 of April 2019 deals with a delay of four and a half years, "after the appellant had been made aware of the error for the second time". That delay did not satisfy the "without delay" requirement. (see reasons 2) == Applicability in opposition proceedings == The principles laid out in G 1/12 can also be used in opposition proceedings to correct the designation of the opponent in the notice of opposition.: "Identity of opponent and correction of opponent's name" ==References== == Further reading == * : "Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings - " * : "Request for correction to be filed without delay" * : "Law of evidence – Introduction" * : "Principle of free evaluation of evidence" * : "Probative value of evidence on a case-by- case basis" * : "Payment of opposition fee - correction of a payment form" * : "Identity of opponent and correction of opponent's name - principles" * : "Identity of opponent and correction of opponent's name - availability of to rectify errors" * : "Formal aspects under - appeal filed by wrong company" * : "Formal aspects under - party consisting of plurality of persons" * : "Form and content of notice of appeal () - " * : "Payment of appeal fee - reduced fee for appeal filed by a natural person or an entity" * : "Referral by a board of appeal – general" * : "Referral by a board of appeal – pending proceedings" * : "Referral by a board of appeal – ensuring uniform application of the law" * : "Referral by a board of appeal – point of law of fundamental importance" == External links == * G 0001/12 () of 30 April 2014 * Decision G 1/12, Official Journal EPO 11/2014, A114 () *Decision T 445/08 of 30 January 2012 (referring decision) G 2012 1 Category:2014 in case law Category:2014 in Europe Category:Jurisdiction
G 1/13 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued 25 November 2014 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Wim Van der Eijk Members: K. Garnett, A. Klein, R. Moufang, R. Murphy, U. Oswald, G. Weiss G 1/13 is a decision issued on 25 November 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that in opposition proceedings a retroactive effect of a restoration of a company must be recognised by the EPO. In other words, a restoration of a company has retroactive effect before the EPO when it has such retroactive effect under national law. ==Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal== The referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal lies from an interlocutory decision T 22/09 Decision T 22/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY) of 21 June 2013 from Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.07. The referred questions were: ==Answers to the referred questions== The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered these questions as follows: ==References == == Further reading == *: "Opposition procedure - entitlement to file an opposition - general" *: "Opposition procedure - entitlement to file an opposition - examination at any state in the proceedings of entitlement to oppose" *: "Procedural status of the parties - parties to appeal proceedings" *: "Procedural status of the parties - existence of a company" *: "Referral by a board of appeal - general" *: "Referral by a board of appeal - point of law of fundamental importance" == External links == * G 0001/13 () of 25.11.2014 * Decision G 1/13, Official Journal EPO 4/2015, A42 () *Decision T 22/09 (Party status/Fischer-Tropsch Catalysts/SASOL TECHNOLOGY) of 21 June 2013 (referring decision) G 2013 1 Category:2014 in case law Category:2014 in Europe Category:Jurisdiction
G 1/15 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Order issued on November 29, 2016; full reasoned decision issued in February 2017 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Wim van der Eijk Members: Per Carlson, Ingo Beckedorf, Claude Vallet, Fritz Blumer, Hugo Meinders, Werner Sieber In case G 1/15, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) affirmed the concept of partial priority.Decision T 0260/14 (Polyether-based preparations) of 13.4.2017, point 2.3. That is, a patent claim in a European patent application or European patent may partially benefit from the priority of an earlier application. ==History== The questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal under sought "to clarify how Article 88(2), second sentence, EPC is to be applied in the light of the Enlarged Board's decision G 2/98 in cases where a claim encompasses, without spelling them out, alternative subject-matters having all the features of the claim (known as a generic "OR"-claim), and whether parent and divisional applications may be prior art under against one another in respect of subject- matter disclosed in a priority application but not entitled to priority." The case, triggered by decision T 557/13 issued on 17 July 2015 by Board of Appeal 3.3.06, had led the President of the EPO to decide that "all proceedings before EPO examining and opposition divisions in which the decision depends entirely" on the outcome of the case were to "be stayed ex officio until the Enlarged Board issues its decision". The case attracted more than thirty amicus curiae briefs. Oral proceedings were held on 7 June 2016 at the EPO in Munich, Germany. The order, which was issued on November 29, 2016, reads: The full reasoned decision was issued in February 2017. ==See also== * Amendments under the European Patent Convention ==References == ==Further reading== * ==External links== *Reasoned decision G 1/15 *Technical Board of Appeal decision T 0557/13 from Board 3.3.06, from which the referral originates (regarding - see also European Patent Register entry) *Notice from the European Patent Office dated 2 October 2015 concerning the staying of proceedings due to referral G 1/15 (EPO Official Journal, 2015, A92) G 2015 1
G 1/19 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Decision issued on 10 March 2021 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Carl Josefsson Members: Fritz Blumer, Gunnar Eliasson, Adem Aslan, Ingo Beckedorf, Tamás Bokor, Andrea Ritzka G 1/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 10 March 2021, which deals with the patentability of computer-implemented simulations. ==Background== The case, triggered by decision T 489/14 issued on 22 February 2019 by Board of Appeal 3.5.07, deals with a European patent application relating to "a computer-implemented method, computer program and apparatus for simulating the movement of a pedestrian crowd through an environment". Decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22.2.2019, Reasons 2, first paragraph. "The main purpose of the simulation is its use in a process for designing a venue such as a railway station or a stadium".T 489/14, Reasons 2, third paragraph. While Board 3.5.07 acknowledged the analogy with case T 1227/05 (Circuit simulation I/Infineon Technologies)T 489/14, Reasons 14, first paragraph. (in which the specific mathematical steps involved in a computer-implemented simulation of an electrical circuit subject to noise were found to contribute to the technical character of the invention),Decision T 1227/05 (Circuit simulation I/Infineon Technologies) of 13.12.2006 which supported the applicant's case,T 489/14, Reasons 15, first paragraph. the Board did not agree with the conclusion reached by the deciding Board in T 1227/05. Eventually, considering this to be a question of fundamental importance, Board 3.5.07 decided to refer three questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. ==The questions== The three questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are: # "In the assessment of inventive step, can the computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect which goes beyond the simulation's implementation on a computer, if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as such? # If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the relevant criteria for assessing whether a computer-implemented simulation claimed as such solves a technical problem? In particular, is it a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, at least in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process? # What are the answers to the first and second questions if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design?" ==Amicus curiae and oral proceedings== Oral proceedings took place before the Enlarged Board of Appeal on July 15, 2020. The oral proceedings were live streamed over the internet. Additionally, third parties were given the opportunity to file written statements after the initial referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, to be considered as part of these oral proceedings, resulting in the filing of 23 amicus curiae briefs. ==Decision== The Enlarged Board of Appeal held "that existing case law regarding computer-implemented inventions also applies to computer-implemented simulations", and it retained "its established approach in assessing inventive step, known as the COMVIK approach". ==See also== * G 3/08, referral relating to the patentability of programs for computers (referral held to be inadmissible for lack of divergent case law) ==References == ==Further reading== * * *: "Establishing technical character - direct link to physical reality" *: "Establishing technical character - potential technical effect" *: "Establishing technical character - virtual or "calculated" technical effect" *: "Establishing technical character - tangible technical effect" *: "Establishing technical character - computer- implemented simulation methods" *: "Inventive step - problem and solution approach" *: "Inventive step - technical problem - determination of the objective technical problem in general" *: "Inventive step - technical problem - formulation of the objective technical problem" *: "Inventive step - assessment of features relating to mathematical algorithms - simulations" *: "The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties - application of the rules of interpretation" *: "Impact of national decisions on the case law of the boards of appeal - national decisions: no binding effect on the boards of appeal" *: "Referral by a board of appeal - point of law of fundamental importance" ==External links== *Decision G 1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 10 March 2021 *Decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22 February 2019 (referring decision) G 2019 1
G 1/21 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Decision issued on 16 July 2021 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: Fritz Blumer Members: Wim van der Eijk, Tamás Bokor, Richard Arnold, Evangelos Chatzikos, Gunnar Eliasson, Andrea Ritzka G 1/21 is a decision issued on 16 July 2021 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding the legality of holding oral proceedings at the EPO by videoconference without the consent of the parties. Namely, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that "[d]uring a general emergency impairing the parties' possibilities to attend in-person oral proceedings at the EPO premises, the conduct of oral proceedings before the boards of appeal in the form of a videoconference is compatible with the EPC even if not all of the parties to the proceedings have given their consent to the conduct of oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference." The reasoning in the written decision further indicates that, if a party so requests, oral proceedings must be held in person at the EPO premises, except in absolutely exceptional cases. ==Procedural history== The case dealt with the following question: which Board 3.5.02 in case T 1807/15 referred on 12 March 2021 to the Enlarged Board of Appeal pursuant to . Many amicus curiae briefs and third party observations were later filed in relation to the question at stake.G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Summary of Facts and Submissions, point X. "Over fifty amicus curiae briefs and third party observations referring to Article 115 EPC were received from various organisations, companies, patent attorney firms and individuals." Following an objection raised by the appellant under , the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued on 17 May 2021 an interlocutory decision holding that its original chairman, the President of the Boards of Appeal Carl Josefsson, as well as another one of its members, should not take part in the referral, because they had been involved in drafting Article 15a of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPBA).Interlocutory decision G 1/21 of 17 May 2021G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Summary of Facts and Submissions, points XI and XII. Article 15a RPBA, which entered into force on 1 April 2021, allows –or at least purports to allow– the Boards of Appeal to hold oral proceedings by videoconference without the consent of the parties. The composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal was therefore changed by an order dated 20 May 2021.G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Summary of Facts and Submissions, point XII. On 28 May 2021, public oral proceedings were held regarding the case, via videoconference. During these oral proceedings, a second interlocutory decision was issued, in which further objections against the composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal were rejected as inadmissible.Interlocutory decision G 1/21 of 28 May 2021 At the end of these oral proceedings, the Enlarged Board of Appeal then decided to postpone the oral proceedings. Oral proceedings were then resumed on 2 July 2021 and the order was then issued, without the detailed reasons, on 16 July 2021. The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued the reasons for its decision on 28 October 2021. ==Written decision== In its written decision, the Enlarged Board of Appeal on the one hand narrowed down the scope of the referral to oral proceedings before the Boards of Appeal (thus, not directly dealing with oral proceedings held in first-instance proceedings) and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, points 14 and 16. i.e. to oral proceedings held in "a period of general emergency".G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, point 56. On the other hand, the Enlarged Board broadened the referred question to whether holding oral proceedings by videoconference was compatible not only with but also with .G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, points 17-19. The Enlarged Board thus reformulated the referred question as follows: The Enlarged Board then went on to explain why, in its view, "oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference are oral proceedings within the meaning of Article 116 EPC",G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, points 21-30 (quote from point 30). why telephone conferences are "clearly not suitable as a format for oral proceedings",G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, point 41. and why "the use of video technology can make it suboptimal as a format for oral proceedings, either objectively or in the perception of the participants, but normally not to such a degree that a party's right to be heard or right to fair proceedings is seriously impaired".G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, points 33-43 (quote from point 43). In other words, "oral proceedings by videoconference are oral proceedings within the meaning of Article 116 EPC and, although not fully equivalent to oral proceedings held in person, normally do not infringe a party's right to be heard or the right to fair proceedings".G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, point 44. The Enlarged Board further held that, under normal circumstances, oral proceedings by videoconference cannot be imposed on a party, i.e. a party has a right to in-person oral proceedings, as in-person oral proceedings are the default format.G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, points 44-45. "Parties can only be denied this option for good reasons."G 1/21 of 16 July 2021, Reasons for the Decision, point 45. Accordingly, the Enlarged Board answered the reformulated question as follows: == References == ==Further reading== *: "Oral proceedings held by videoconference - legal basis" *: "Oral proceedings held by videoconference - oral proceedings by videoconference in case of general emergency – G 1/21" *: "Oral proceedings held by videoconference - decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic and before G 1/21" *: "Law of evidence - introduction" *: "The Vienna convention on the law of treaties - application of the rules of interpretation" *: "The Vienna convention on the law of treaties - secondary considerations: dynamic interpretation - secondary considerations: dynamic interpretation" *: "Admissibility - obligation to raise the objection immediately" *: "Admissibility - objection must be reasoned and substantiated" *: "Suspected partiality of members of the enlarged board of appeal - previous involvement in the preparation of legislation" *: "Power to amend the RPBA under " == External links == * G 0001/21 (Oral proceedings by videoconference) of 16 July 2021 * Preceding interlocutory decisions: ** G 0001/21 (Exclusion and objection) of 17 May 2021 (first interlocutory decision) ** G 0001/21 (Exclusion and objection) of 28 May 2021 (second interlocutory decision) *Decision T 1807/15 (Oral proceedings in the form of a videoconference) of 12 March 2021 (referring decision) G 2021 1
G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office decisions issued on 5 December 1984 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: R. Singer Members: O. Bossung, P. Ford, R. Kämpf, M. Prélot, G. Szabo, J. van Voorthuizen G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 are landmark decisions issued on 5 December 1984 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on the patentability of second or further medical use of a known substance or composition. They deal with patent claims directed to such second or subsequent medical use, and, as explained in reason 22 of decision G 5/83, the Enlarged Board held that patent claims directed to such substances or compositions were allowable under the European Patent Convention (EPC) when worded as purpose-limited product claims, which are also referred to as "Swiss-type use claims". These decisions are the first decisions issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal.G 5/83, point 2. ==Background== The European Patent Convention (EPC) is a multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted. Its version applicable before December 13, 2007 contained a provision, namely , reading as follows: The EPC also contains provisions regarding novelty, with providing that "[a]n invention shall be considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art." Article 54(2) to (4) EPC 1973 also define what the state of the art comprises. Further, provided the following exception: In other words, "Article 54(5) EPC [1973] exempts from the operation of the earlier paragraphs of that Article any substance or composition comprised in the state of the art for use in a method according to Article 52(4) EPC [1973]."G 5/83, point 10. Thus, besides the general concept of novelty, Article 54(5) EPC 1973 (now corresponding to ) "introduces, in respect of substances and compounds used in surgical and therapeutic treatment and in diagnostic processes carried out on humans and animals, a special concept of novelty unknown in other technical fields (T 128/82, OJ 1984, 164)".: "First medical use - introduction" The question then arose as to whether use claims would have to be treated any differently from method claims when it comes to Article 52(4) EPC 1973, i.e. when it comes to a claimed method or claimed use "for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body". Another question also arose as to "the possibility of protecting second (and subsequent) medical indications by means of a claim directed to the use of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified (new) therapeutic application",G 5/83, point 19. as Article 54(5) EPC 1973 appears to literally deal only with first medical indications. ==Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal== The referrals to the Enlarged Board of Appeal lie from interlocutory decisions T 17/81,(Nimodipin) Decision T 17/81 of 30 May 1983 T 92/82,Decision T 92/82 of 20 June 1983 and T 24/82Decision T 24/82 of 20 June 1983 from Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.1 (the sole Technical Board of Appeal for Chemistry at that timeG 5/83, point I.). The question asked in decision T 17/81 and leading to decision G 1/83 is: The question asked in decision T 92/82 and leading to decision G 5/83 is: The question asked in decision T 24/82 and leading to decision G 6/83 is: In other words, "[t]he question of law referred to the Enlarged Board relate[d] to therapeutic use claims for substances and compositions in general".G 5/83, point 9. The Enlarged Board also considered that "the problem of the protection of inventions of the so-called "second medical indication"" was the central question in these cases, and therefore chose "to examine all aspects of that problem". ==Answers to the referred questions== The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered the question asked in decision T 17/81 as follows: The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered the question asked in decision T 92/82 as follows: The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered the question asked in decision T 24/82 as follows: In summary, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held that use claims and method claims must be treated in the same manner if the purpose of the claimed use or method, respectively, is the "treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body". There is no difference in substance, these method claims and use claims are not patentable under , and no patents can be granted for those.G 5/83, points 11-13. Further, the Enlarged Board also held that novelty of a substance or composition for the manufacture of a medicament for a specified new and inventive therapeutic application was to be acknowledged by virtue of "the new therapeutic use of the medicament" regardless of whether the new therapeutic use is the first pharmaceutical use of the medicament or a second (or further) pharmaceutical use of the medicament.G 5/83, points 21 and 23. The Enlarged Board's decisions were thus a response to a gap, i.e. a lacuna, in the law.G 2/08, reasons 5.9 and 5.10.1. ==Application of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties== In its decision, the Enlarged Board also held that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was not in force at the time of conclusion of the European Patent Convention (EPC).Romuald Singer, Margarete Singer, Dieter Stauder, Europäisches Patentübereinkommen - Kommentar, Präambel, page 12, 5th edition, Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2010.G 5/83, point 3. Consequently, the Vienna Convention does not apply to the EPC by operation of law (ex lege). The Enlarged Board still held that due to a number of convincing precedents, the EPO should apply the rules of the Vienna Convention.G 5/83, point 4. More specifically, it held that Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention are each relevant to the interpretation of the EPC.G 5/83, point 5. ==Analysis== The type of claim referred to in the answers provided by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 is called a "Swiss-type claim" or "Swiss-type use claim". The EPC 2000 removed the need for Swiss-type claims. According to decision G 2/08, a claim deriving its novelty from a new therapeutic use shall no longer come as a Swiss-type claim.Kaisa Suominen, Peter de Lange, Andrew John Rudge, VISSER'S ANNOTATED EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION, , chapter 2.3, page 103, Wolters Kluwer, 2022. ==Notes== ==References == ==External links== *Decisions G 1/83, G 5/83 and G 6/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 5 December 1984 (OJ EPO, 1985, p. 60) *Decision G 2/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 5 December 1984 *Decision G 3/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 5 December 1984 *Decision G 4/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 5 December 1984 *Decision G 7/83 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 5 December 1984 *Decision T 17/81 (Nimodipin) of 30 May 1983 (referring decision) *Decision T 92/82 of 20 June 1983 (referring decision) *Decision T 24/82 of 20 June 1983 (referring decision) G 1983 1
G 1/84 100px| Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office Issued July 24, 1985 Board composition {| align="center" Chairman: R. Singer Members: P. Ford, O. Bossung, R. Kämpf, M. Prélot, G. Szabo, W. Oettinger G 1/84 is a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was issued on July 24, 1985. The Board held in this decision that: : "A notice of opposition against a European patent is not inadmissible merely because it has been filed by the proprietor of that patent." The decision was overruled in G 9/93, a later decision in which the Enlarged Board held that a European patent cannot be opposed by its own proprietor. == External links == * Decision G 1/84 on the "EPO boards of appeal decisions" section of the EPO web site * Decision G 1/84 in the Official Journal of the EPO 1985, page 299 * G 1984 1 Category:1985 in case law Category:1985 in Europe