T 1213/11 () of 20.12.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T121311.20111220
Date of decision: 20 December 2011
Case number: T 1213/11
Application number: 02795516.0
IPC class: G01N 21/17
G01N 21/55
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.401K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Low-cost on-line and in-line spectral sensors based on solid-state source and detector combinations for monitoring lubricants and functional fluids
Applicant name: Sentelligence, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.02
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. The appellant contests the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office dated 17 December 2010 refusing European patent application No. 02795516.0.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 17 February 2011 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

The notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.

A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC.

II. In a communication dated 8 June 2011, the Board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.

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

In a letter dated 9 November 2011 the appellant withdrew the request for oral proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement pursuant to Article 108 and Rule 99(2) EPC. Thus, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation