| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T109716.20170804 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 04 August 2017 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1097/16 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 10720507.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | B23Q 17/20 B23Q 17/24 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | USER-FACILITATED MATERIAL REMOVAL IN COMPOSITE STRUCTURES | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | The Boeing Company | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Airbus Defence and Space GmbH Lufthansa Technik AG Sauer GmbH Airbus Operations GmbH |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals are directed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 18 February 2016, posted on 4 March 2016.
II. The appellant 01 (opponent 01) filed a notice of appeal on 3 May 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
The appellant 02 (opponent 04) filed a notice of appeal on 4 May 2016 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 17 August 2016, received by the appellants, the Registry of the Board informed the appellants that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeals would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellants were informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
IV. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
1. No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC.
2. In addition, neither the notices of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC.
3. Therefore, the appeals have to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeals of opponent 01 and opponent 04 are rejected as inadmissible.
