Accompanying the summons was a communication in which the Board raised objections to the claims under Articles 52(1), 54, 56, 84 and 123(2).In particular, the Board stated its preliminary finding that the invention as claimed in claim 6 lacked novelty over the disclosure in document D3.V. In a written reply dated 10 April 2002 to the Board's communication, the appellant informed the Board of his d