| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T246510.20110307 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 07 March 2011 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2465/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02011191.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H01J 37/147 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Charged particle beam alignment method and charged particle beam apparatus | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Hitachi, Ltd. | ||||||||
| 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. 02011191 posted 5 July 2010.
A notice of appeal on behalf of the applicant appellant was filed on 1 September 2010. The appeal fee was paid on 9 September 2010. No separate statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
II. By a communication dated 23 December 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 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
