T 0958/07 () of 14.5.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T095807.20090514
Date of decision: 14 May 2009
Case number: T 0958/07
Application number: 97201302.3
IPC class: H05H 1/34
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16.591K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Plasma arc cutting apparatus
Applicant name: HYPERTHERM, INC.
Opponent name: L'AIR LIQUIDE, S.A. A DIRECTOIRE ET CONSEIL DE SURVEILLANCE POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCEDES GEORGES CLAUDE
Kjellberg Finsterwalde Elektroden und Maschinen GmbH
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of the appeal - no
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant (patent proprietor) contests the decision of the opposition division dated 5 April 2007 maintaining European patent No. 0794697 in amended form.

II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal received on 6 June 2007 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was received. No other appeal was filed.

III. In a communication dated 20 September 2007 sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been received and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.

IV. No such observations were filed. Instead, the appellant accepted by letter of 7 April 2009 that the appeal would be found inadmissible and asked for confirmation.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Article 108 EPC 1973 requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC 1973 the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.

2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation