European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T098002.20030526 | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date of decision: | 26 May 2003 | ||||||||
Case number: | T 0980/02 | ||||||||
Application number: | 92101256.3 | ||||||||
IPC class: | B29C 61/06 | ||||||||
Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
Distribution: | D | ||||||||
Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
Title of application: | Process for producing shrink film and resultant shrink film layers and laminates | ||||||||
Applicant name: | APPLIED EXTRUSION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. | ||||||||
Opponent name: | Mobil Oil Corporation Hoechst Trespaphan GmbH |
||||||||
Board: | 3.2.05 | ||||||||
Headnote: | - | ||||||||
Relevant legal provisions: | |||||||||
Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
Citing decisions: |
|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office dated 9 July 2002 revoking the European patent No. 0 498 249 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC.
II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 17 September 2002 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date.
No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. In addition, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement within the meaning of Article 108 EPC, third sentence.
III. By a communication sent by registered post with advice of delivery on 6 December 2002, and received by the appellant on 10 December 2002, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal 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. The attention of the appellant was also drawn to Rule 84a EPC and to Article 122 EPC.
IV. No answer has been given 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.