T 0316/21 11-08-2021
Download and more information:
LOW CAPACITANCE SCR WITH TRIGGER ELEMENT
I. The appeal is directed against the refusal of European
patent application No. 06816769.1 posted on
27 October 2020.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 6 January 2021 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. While the notice of appeal contained a request for oral proceedings, no separate statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
III. By a communication dated 13 April 2021, sent by
registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds
of appeal had been filed and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected
as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC.
The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
IV. No reply was received. No request for re-establishment
of rights was filed.
As no written statement setting out the 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, third sentence, and Rule 99(2)
EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article
108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
In accordance with case law, namely decision T 1042/07 of
22 August 2008, the request for oral proceedings is deemed withdrawn or superseded by the subsequent failure to react to
the Board's communication:
"In the specific circumstances of the present case,
where the appellant has not provided any statement as
to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given
any explanation or comment as to why no statement of
grounds had been filed, and has not reacted in
substance to the Board's notification of an impending
rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the Board
considers the initial auxiliary request for oral
proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of
the subsequent course of action taken. In other words,
the lack of any substantive response to the
notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is
considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the
request for oral proceedings."
For the above reason, the decision could be rendered without
oral proceedings.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.