T 0391/03 () of 15.7.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T039103.20050715
Date of decision: 15 July 2005
Case number: T 0391/03
Application number: 97303962.1
IPC class: H01J 37/32
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 52 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: RF plasma processors
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 56
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 84
Keywords: No substantive response from appellant applicant
Oral proceedings not attended
Grounds in Board's communication maintained
Appeal dismissed


Cited decisions:
T 0230/99
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This is an appeal against the refusal of European patent application 97 303 962.1. The ground for refusal was that claim 1 was not clear since it did not comprise all the features essential to the solution of the technical problem (Article 84, Rules 29(1),(3) EPC).

II. The applicant filed an appeal and requested grant of a patent on the basis of the refused claims; auxiliarily oral proceedings were requested.

III. In a reasoned communication annexed to the summons to oral proceedings appointed for 15 July 2005, the board informed the appellant of its provisional opinion that claim 1 was not supported by the description (Article 84 EPC) and that its subject-matter did not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

IV. By letter dated 13 July 2005 the appellant informed the board that he would not attend the oral proceedings and requested that a decision be issued on the basis of the written submissions. Oral proceedings were held on the appointed day in the absence of the appellant.

Reasons for the Decision

1. The appeal is admissible.

2. In the communication of the board, the appellant was informed in detail of the reasons for the board's preliminary view that claim 1 was not supported by the description and that its subject-matter did not involve an inventive step (Article 84 EPC and Article 56 EPC).

3. The appellant made no substantive response to the board's communication. Having reconsidered its own reasoned objections as set out in the said communication and making express reference thereto, the board sees no reason to depart from them. Consequently, the appellant's request falls to be refused (cf T 230/99 at point 7).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is dismissed.

Quick Navigation