| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T041105.20050714 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 14 July 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0411/05 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02003253.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C07D 261/08 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Substituted isoxazoles for the treatment of inflammation | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | G.D. Searle LLC | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.01 | ||||||||
| 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 Examining Division of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant on 25 October 2004 refusing the European patent application 02 003 253.8
The Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal by a letter received on 22 December 2004 and paid the fee for appeal 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 28 April 2005, sent by registered post, the Registrar 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 informed about the possibility of filing a request for re- establisbment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
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, 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.
