| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T168620.20201208 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 08 December 2020 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1686/20 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06773179.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H01L21/336 H01L21/00 H01L27/01 H01L29/76 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | SHORT CHANNEL SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE FABRICATION | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Texas Instruments Incorporated | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the refusal of European patent application No. 06773179.4 posted on 4 March 2020.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 14 May 2020 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. While the
notice of appeal contained a request for oral
proceedings, no separate statement of grounds of appeal
was filed.
III. By a communication dated 18 August 2020, sent by
registered letter with advice of delivery, the
appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of
appeal had been filed and that it was therefore to be
expected that the appeal would be rejected as
inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence,
EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant
was invited to file observations within two months.
IV. No reply was received. No request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108, third sentence, and Rule 99(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
2. In accordance with case law, namely decision T 1042/07 of 22 August 2008, the request for oral proceedings is deemed withdrawn or superseded by the subsequent failure to react to the Board's communication, see point 3 of the Reasons:
"In the specific circumstances of the present case,
where the appellant has not provided any statement as to the substantive merits of its appeal, has not given any explanation or comment as to why no statement of grounds had been filed, and has not reacted in substance to the Board's notification of an impending rejection of the appeal as inadmissible, the Board considers the initial auxiliary request for oral proceedings to have become obsolete as a consequence of the subsequent course of action taken. In other words, the lack of any substantive response to the notification of the inadmissibility of the appeal is considered as equivalent to an abandonment of the request for oral proceedings."
The Board shares this opinion and could consequently decide the case without oral proceedings.
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
