| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T106100.20010228 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 February 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1061/00 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 92908027.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07D 411/04 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Antiviral activity and resolution of 2-hydroxymethyl-5-(5-fluorocytosin-1-YL)-1,3-oxathiolane | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | EMORY UNIVERSITY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant on 3 February 2000, refusing the patent application No. 0 575 482.
The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal by letter received on 13 April 2000 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The Notice of Appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 14 November 2000, sent by registered post, the Registrar of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
