| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2001:T101501.20011218 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 18 December 2001 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1015/01 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95940822.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 6/02 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Fluorocarbon containing coatings, compositions and methods of use | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| 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 posted on 16. March 2001 refusing the European patent application No. 95 940 822.0.
The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal by a letter dated 21 May 2001, received on 25 May 2001, and paid the fee for appeal on 25 May 2001. 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 4 October 2001, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.
III. No answer has been given by the appellant 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.
