T 0644/05 () of 2.11.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T064405.20051102
Date of decision: 02 November 2005
Case number: T 0644/05
Application number: 96930642.2
IPC class: A61B 5/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
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Versions: Unpublished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: Catheter
Applicant name: Rhythm Technologies Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
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 dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant on 09 December 2004, and concerning the refusal of the European patent application No. 96 930 642.2.

The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal by a letter received on 09 February 2005 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. The Notice of Appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 30 May 2005, sent by registered post, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal 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