| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2003:T121002.20030328 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 March 2003 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1210/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96912955.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B01J 21/06 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Formed compositions | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ENGELHARD CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement setting out the grounds of appeal | ||||||||
| 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 5 July 2002 refusing European patent application No. 96 912 955.0, published as WO 96/33014, pursuant to Article 97(1) EPC.
The applicant (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 31. July 2002 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By communication dated 10 January 2003, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no written 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.
