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 1553/05 () of 25.8.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T155305.20060825
Date of decision: 25 August 2006
Case number: T 1553/05
Application number: 95926635.4
IPC class: H01Q 3/26
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.946K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Phased array spread spectrum system and method
Opponent name: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
Board: 3.4.01
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 appellant (patent proprietor) lodged an appeal, received on 16 December 2005, against the decision of the opposition division, dispatched on 13 October 2005, revoking the European patent No. 0 767 976 (application number 95926635.4). The appeal fee was paid on 16 December 2005.

A statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the time limit of four months prescribed by Article 108 EPC. The notice of appeal contained nothing that could be considered as such a statement.

II. By a communication dated 12 April 2006, the Registrar of the Board informed the appellant that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed and, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC and Rule 65(1) EPC). The appellant's attention was drawn to Rule 84a EPC, to the decision of the President of the EPO dated 11 December 1998 (OJ EPO 1999, 45) and to Article 122 EPC. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication.

III. The appellant filed no observations in response to the communication.

Reasons for the Decision

1. 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 is 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 Rule 84a EPC is no longer applicable.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