Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 1861/08 () of 16.3.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T186108.20090316
Date of decision: 16 March 2009
Case number: T 1861/08
Application number: 03253786.2
IPC class: A61B 19/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.448K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Invasive medical device with position sensing and display
Applicant name: Biosense Webster, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. With its decision dated 28 March 2008 the Examining Division refused European patent application No. 03 253 786.2.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal received on 9 June 2008 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In this notice of appeal the appellant requested that the decision be set aside in its entirety and that the application be allowed to proceed to grant.

III. No statement of the grounds of appeal was received nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.

IV. In a communication dated 2 October 2008 sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been received and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.

According to the advice of delivery the appellant received the communication on 7 October 2008.

V. The appellant did neither file observations nor a request of reestablishment in its rights in response to the communication.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.

2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) and Article 108 EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation