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 0756/04 () of 14.3.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T075604.20050314
Date of decision: 14 March 2005
Case number: T 0756/04
Application number: 93118618.3
IPC class: G06F 19/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.872K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Digital x-ray radiographic apparatus
Applicant name: Shimadzu Corporation
Opponent name: Siemens AG
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds
Withdrawal of request for oral proceedings


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office rejecting the opposition against the European patent No. 0 599 207. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 6 April 2004. The Opponent filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 28 May 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request for oral proceedings but nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 23 September 2004 and sent by registered post, the Registry 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. The Appellant filed no observations in response to said communication. By letter dated 25 February 2005, the Appellant withdrew the request for oral proceedings.

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 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC). Rule 84a EPC is no longer applicable.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation