T 1209/04 () of 19.4.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T120904.20050419
Date of decision: 19 April 2005
Case number: T 1209/04
Application number: 00919761.7
IPC class: B22D 37/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.131K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Casting systems and processes with an off-center incoming source of liquid metal
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office dated 27 April 2004 refusing the European patent application No. 00919761.7. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant on the day it was given.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 7 July 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 29 October 2004 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer has been given 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, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation