| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T238610.20110908 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 08 September 2011 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2386/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99904237.7 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G02B 27/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Improved photovoltaic generator circuit | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | CP Clare Corporation | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| 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 23 June 2010 refusing European patent application No. 99 904 237.7.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 23 August 2010 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
The notice of appeal contains a 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 29 December 2010, 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 12 August 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.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
