| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T022702.20020827 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 27 August 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0227/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95101494.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B41M 5/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Paper containing alkaline sizing agents with improved conversion capability | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | HERCULES INCORPORATED | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Raisio Chemicals Oy EKA CHEMICALS AB Patent Department |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.06 | ||||||||
| 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 Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 19. December 2001, rejecting the opposition pursuant to Article 102(2) EPC.
The Appellant (Opponent 02) filed a Notice of Appeal on 27. February 2002 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date.
No Statement of Grounds was filed.
II. By a communication dated 17 June 2002 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry 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 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 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 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 EPC, 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.
