Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0911/03 () of 26.4.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T091103.20040426
Date of decision: 26 April 2004
Case number: T 0911/03
Application number: 99308840.0
IPC class: G06F 17/60
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.683K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method of composing electronic mail in which expression appropriate for receiver can be inserted
Applicant name: Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 84a
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office refusing the European patent application No. 99 308 840.0. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 12 March 2003. The applicant filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 20. May 2003 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No statement of grounds was received. The notice of appeal contains a request for reimbursement of the appeal fee but nothing which could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 6 November 2003 and sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the Registrar of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellant's attention was drawn to the provision concerning the late receipt of documents pursuant to Rule 84a EPC and to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer was received within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPO in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(l) EPC). Rule 84a EPC is no longer applicable.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation