| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T050804.20041221 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 21 December 2004 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0508/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 95610027.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C22C 38/44 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Duplex stainless steel with high corrision resistance | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Park, Yong Soo | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Sandvik AB Edelstahl Witten Krefeld GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.02 | ||||||||
| 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 Opposition Division posted on 6 February 2004 concerning the revoking of the European patent No. 0 683 241, granted in respect of the European patent application No. 95 610 027.5.
II. The appellant (patent proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 16 April 2004. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded 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.
III. By a communication dated 21 July 2004, 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 observation within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.
IV. 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, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible according to Article 108 EPC last sentence in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
