| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T009912.20120917 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 September 2012 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0099/12 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04757476.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 31/07 A61P 27/02 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Retinoid replacements and opsin agonists and methods for the use thereof | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | University of Washington | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| 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 examining division dated 1 August 2011, refusing European patent application No. 04757476.9.
The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal received on 4 October 2011 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
II. In a communication dated 31 May 2012, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that 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, and was invited to file observations within two months of notification of the communication.
III No reply was filed to said communication.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.
2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
