14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T129507.20080122|
|Date of decision:||22 January 2008|
|Case number:||T 1295/07|
|IPC class:||A61B 17/34|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Apparatus and method for percutaneously securing a working space, e.g. in lumbar discectomy|
|Applicant name:||Olympus Corporation|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal lies from the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office dated 23 January 2007, refusing the European patent application No. 98 110 936.6. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant.
II. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 30 March 2007 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
III. By a communication dated 9 August 2007, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement setting out the grounds of appeal 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 (l973) and Rule 84a EPC (1973).
IV. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the registry's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The Board draws the attention of the party to the fact that this decision is issued after the entry into force of the EPC 2000 on 13 December 2007. When Articles or Rules of the old version of the EPC (1973) are cited, the year is indicated. The transitional provisions according to Article 7 of the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000 and the Decisions of the Administrative Council of 28 June 2001 and of 7 December 2006, Article 2, have been applied.
2. 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 101(1) EPC)
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.