T 0710/04 () of 27.9.2004

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2004:T071004.20040927
Date of decision: 27 September 2004
Case number: T 0710/04
Application number: 98305654.0
IPC class: C09D 11/10
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.451K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Reliability enchancement of microemulsion-based ink-jet inks
Applicant name: Hewlett-Packard Company, A Delaware Corporation
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.07
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
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 of the European Patent Office posted on 5 December 2003 refusing European patent application No. 98 305 654.0 pursuant to Article 97(1) EPC.

The applicant (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 5. February 2004 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 communication dated 29 June 2004, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been received 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 65(1) EPC).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation