| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T030008.20081009 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 October 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0300/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97302763.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 31/047 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Anti-cariogenic activity of erythritol and oral compositions comprising it | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | CERESTAR HOLDING BV | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | ROQUETTE FRERES, S.A. | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| 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 of the European Patent Office dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 30 November 2007, and concerning maintenance of the European patent No. 0800823 in amended form.
The Appellant (Proprietor) filed a Notice of Appeal by a letter received on 8 February 2008 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 27 May 2008, 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 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 101(1) EPC (formerly Rule 65(1) EPC 1973)).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
