T 1353/04 () of 15.2.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T135304.20050215
Date of decision: 15 February 2005
Case number: T 1353/04
Application number: 00904484.3
IPC class: A61F 13/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.373K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Compact dosage unit for buccal administration of a pharmacologically active agent
Applicant name: Place, Virgil A.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 102(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Statement setting out the grounds of appeal (no)
Admissibility of the appeal (no)
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 18. June 2004 refusing European Patent Application No. 00 904 484.3.

The Appellant (Applicant) filed a notice of appeal by fax received at the EPO on 17 August 2004 and paid the appeal fee on the same date. No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a notice of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 6 December 2004 and sent the same day by registered letter with advice of delivery and received by the Appellant on 15 December 2004, 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 invited to file any observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights).

III. No response has been given 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