T 0835/04 () of 13.12.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T083504.20041213
Date of decision: 13 December 2004
Case number: T 0835/04
Application number: 97201173.8
IPC class: H03K 17/0812
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.408K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Electrical load driving device including load current limiting circuitry
Applicant name: Delphi Technologies, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing European patent application No. 97 201 173.8. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 23 January 2004.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 6 March 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery on 3 September 2004, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds 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.

III. The appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation