| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T074404.20050405 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 05 April 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0744/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96916533.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B60R 1/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Rearview vision system for vehicle including panoramic view | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | DONELLY CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Matsushita Communication Industrial Co., Ltd. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision posted 7. April 2004 according to which it was found that, account being taken of amendments made by the patent proprietor during the opposition proceedings, the European patent No. 0 830 267 and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC.
II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 4 June 2004, paid the fee for appeal on the same day and stated that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal would be filed in due course. No statement of grounds was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC.
III. By a communication dated 23 September 2004, sent by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
IV. No observations were received in response to said communication either within the set time limit or within the three months after expiry of the time limit provided by Rule 84a EPC.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed. Furthermore, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC. The appeal therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
