O6: Sworn affidavit by Hui Jin, dated 25 July 2013, submitted on 27 September 2013 O4: Purchase receipts for printer models Samsung ML-1631 K and SCX-4501 K, 2 pages, submitted on 27 September 2013 O3: Collection of pictures of a printer Samsung SCX-4501 K, 5 pages submitted on 27 September 2013 O2: Collection of photos of a printer Samsung ML-1631 6 pages submitted on 8 June 2012
O1: Collection of copies of web pages 17 pages published around August/September 2007 submitted on 8 June 2012
#SAMSUNG ML 2010 PRINTER MISSING LINES SERIES#
In relation to a prior use of printer series "Samsung" SCX4500, SCX4501, ML-1630, ML-1631 and corresponding cartridges (in the following referred to as "prior use "Samsung" "), the following collection of documents and evidence were cited during the opposition proceedings in order to substantiate the prior use: O8: vibration test protocol, submitted on 8 October 2014. The following documents are referred to in this decision which were already cited during the opposition procedure: As a result, the oral proceedings scheduled for 02 September 2021 were cancelled. With letter dated 18 August 2021 the appellant withdrew their request for oral proceedings and informed the Board that they will not attend oral proceedings if they should take place. The Board sent a communication pursuant to Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 dated. They also requested that the case not be remitted to the opposition division in case the Board agreed to the alleged substantial procedural violations, but that a final decision be taken instead. First to fourth auxiliary requests were filed with letter dated 07 June 2021. Oral proceedings were requested as an auxiliary measure. The respondent (patent proprietor) requested that the appeal be dismissed and the European patent be maintained according to the interlocutory decision. Reimbursement of the appeal fee was requested due to alleged substantial procedural violations by the opposition division. The appellant requested the decision be set aside and the European patent be revoked in its entirety. Grounds of opposition were insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step (Articles 100 (a) and (b), 52(1), 54, 56 and 83 EPC). The opposition had been filed against the patent as a whole. 2 037 327 as amended during the opposition proceedings (Article 101(3)(a) EPC).
The appeal of the appellant (opponent) concerns the interlocutory decision of the opposition division to maintain European patent No. Reimbursement of appeal fee - appealed decision reasoned (yes) Image forming apparatus and the use of a developing device Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Registerīibliographic information is available in:
0 kommentar(er)
