T 0334/05 () of 3.11.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T033405.20051103
Date of decision: 03 November 2005
Case number: T 0334/05
Application number: 98107939.5
IPC class: B65H 3/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.870K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Sheet separator friction pad
Applicant name: Lexmark International Inc.
Opponent name: Canon Inc.
Board: 3.2.05
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 is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office concerning maintenance of European patent No. 0 875 474 in amended form. The decision was sent to the appellant (opponent) on 29 November 2004.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 9 February 2005 and paid the appeal fee at the same time.

No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. In addition, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement within the meaning of Article 108 EPC, third sentence.

II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery on 20 May 2005, and received by the appellant on 23 May 2005, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months. The attention of the appellant was also drawn to Rule 84a EPC and to Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer 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