Boards of Appeal symbol


Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now


T 0024/05 () of 16.6.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T002405.20050616
Date of decision: 16 June 2005
Case number: T 0024/05
Application number: 97904182.9
IPC class: A61F 13/15
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 52.308K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Dual elastic, liquid barrier containment flaps for a disposable absorbent article
Opponent name: Paul Hartmann AG
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 122
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds of appeal


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office taken at the oral proceedings held on 28 September 2004 revoking the European patent No. 0 883 394. The decision was posted to the appellant on 22 October 2004. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 30 December 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date.

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 a communication dated 6 April 2005, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery and received by the appellant on the 12 April 2005, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal would be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file 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.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation