J 0023/86 () of 25.2.1987

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1987:J002386.19870225
Date of decision: 25 February 1987
Case number: J 0023/86
Application number: 82201662.2
IPC class: F03D 7/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 110 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Device for retaining a directable windmill in the wind direction
Applicant name: Jos Hayen
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.1.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Inadmissible appeal
Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:
J 0013/04

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This appeal contests the Decision of the Head of the Formalities Section of Directorate General 2 dated 10 March 1986 refusing a request for restitutio in integrum. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the appellant on the day it was given. The appellant filed the appeal by letter dated 16 May 1986 and paid the fee for appeal on 20 May 1986. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds.

II. By a Communication dated 1 September 1986, receipt of which was not acknowledged and a copy of which was posted on 25 November 1986 and received by the appellant on 27 November 1986 the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal presumably would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within 2 months.

III. The appellant filed no observations nor has he filed a request for restitutio in integrum in respect of his failure to file a Statement of Grounds.

Reasons for the Decision

As no Statement of Grounds has been filed the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons, it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation