14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T153506.20090113|
|Date of decision:||13 January 2009|
|Case number:||T 1535/06|
|IPC class:||G03B 27/32|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Method and apparatus for printing digital images|
|Applicant name:||Eastman Kodak Company|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Inventive step (no)|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This is an appeal against the refusal of application 00 200 317 for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC 1973).
II. On appeal the applicant requested grant of a patent on the basis of a main, 1st or 2nd auxiliary requests filed with the statement of grounds of appeal. Auxiliarily oral proceedings were requested.
III. In a reasoned communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings appointed for 13 January 2009, the board informed the appellant of its provisional opinion that the method of printing a customer image order of claim 1 of the 2nd auxiliary request did not involve an inventive step over a combination of EP 0 890 870 A and EP 0 693 852 A, that this comments applied as well to the apparatus for printing a customer image order of claim 2 of the 2nd auxiliary request, as it directly implemented the method of claim 1 and, as the subject-matters of the claims of the main and 1st auxiliary request comprised the subject-matters of the claims of the 2nd auxiliary request, these comments applied equally to them.
IV. By letter dated 12 December 2008 the appellant applicant's representatives informed the board that the applicant did not intend to file any further submissions or requests and that no representative would attend the oral proceedings.
V. The oral proceedings were held in the absence of the applicant's representatives.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeal is admissible.
2. In the communication of the board, the appellant applicant was informed in detail of the reasons for the board's preliminary view that the method of printing a customer image order of claim 1 and the apparatus for printing a customer image order of claim 2 of the main, 1st or 2nd requests were not allowable (Article 56 EPC 1973).
3. The appellant did not file any substantive response to the communication, but announced that he would not be represented at the oral proceedings. Having reconsidered its own reasoned objections as set out in the said communication and making express reference thereto, the board sees no reason to depart from them. Consequently, the appellant's requests fall to be refused.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is dismissed.