| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T106701.20020314 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 March 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1067/01 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95917618.1 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B32B 5/24 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Slit elastic fibrous nonwoven laminates | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Paul Hartmann AG The Procter & Gamble Company |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 31 July 2001 concerning maintenance of European patent No. 0 757 624 in amended form.
Opponent II (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 26. September 2001 and paid the prescribed fee on the same day.
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 20 December 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 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 received 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.
