T 1717/06 () of 20.4.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T171706.20070420
Date of decision: 20 April 2007
Case number: T 1717/06
Application number: 98915201.2
IPC class: A61B 3/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.281K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A system for imaging an ocular fundus semi-automatically at high resolution and wide field
Applicant name: JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds
Catchwords:

-

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 2 May 2006, refusing the European patent application No. 98 915 201.2. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 3 July 2006 and paid the fee on the same day.

No Statement of Ground 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 20 November 2006, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, 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 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 and Rule 84a 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)

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation