| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T062805.20060131 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 31 January 2006 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0628/05 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97902627.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C22C 38/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Steel sheet for two-piece battery can excellent in moldability, secondary work embrittlement resistance, and corrosion resistance | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | NKK CORPORATION | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Hille & Müller | ||||||||
| 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 is from the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division posted on 14 March 2005 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 0 822 266, granted in respect of European patent application No. 97 902 627.5.
II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 13 May 2005. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on 13 May 2005. 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 EPO.
III. By a communication dated 31 August 2005 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds 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 and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).
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.
