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 2123/08 () of 20.2.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T212308.20090220
Date of decision: 20 February 2009
Case number: T 2123/08
Application number: 06253557.0
IPC class: G01R 33/381
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.309K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Thin metal layer vacuum vessels with composite structural support
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Appeal inadmissible (no statement of grounds filed)


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appellant contests the decision of the examining division dated 17 April 2008 refusing European patent application No. 06 253 557.0.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal received on 3 June 2008 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The appellant requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that a patent be granted on the basis of the present claims, or on the basis of amended claims which may be submitted in the course of the proceedings. Moreover, oral proceedings were requested in the event that the Board of Appeal intended to confirm the contested decision.

III. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC 1973.

IV. In a communication dated 14 November 2008 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal should be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations would have to be filed within two months.

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

Reasons for the Decision

1. As no written statement of grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

2. The conditional request for oral proceedings is invalid since the Board does not decide on a confirmation of the contested decision but rejects the appeal as inadmissible.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation