-

Lack of novelty objection due to prior use submitted with the statement of grounds of appeal: late filed (yes) — not admitted into the appeal proceedings as not prima facie relevant.
Technical report submitted after the statement of grounds of appeal by the Appellant: late filed (yes) - not admitted into the appeal proceedings as not prima facie relevant.
Technical reports submitted by the Appellant one month before the oral proceedings: late filed (yes) - not admitted into the proceedings - no opportunity for the Respondent to take position.
Main request, first and second auxiliary requests: inventive step (no) - no improvement within the whole claimed area — obvious alternative.
Third auxiliary request: inventive step (no) - alleged effect not credibly achieved for all claimed alternatives — extent of the claimed monopoly not justified by the technical contribution to the art.
Fourth auxiliary request: inventive step (yes) - non obvious alternative.

• View the full document as PDF file
• Voll-Dokument als PDF Dokument betrachten
• Visualiser le document complet au format PDF