| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T201810.20110124 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 24 January 2011 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2018/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02768252.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H01L 21/027 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Homogenization of a spatially coherent radiation beam and printing and inspection, respectively, of a pattern on a workpiece | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Micronic Mydata AB | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inadmissible appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. This is an appeal against the refusal of European patent application No. 02768252 posted 16 April 2010.
A notice of appeal on behalf of the applicant appellant was filed on 16 June 2010. The appeal fee was paid on the same day. No separate statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
II. By a communication dated 5 October 2010 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the appellant was informed that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer has been given to the communication within the time limit. No request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
