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 1358/05 (Adenovirus vectors/GENESYS) of 10.5.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T135805.20050510
Date of decision: 10 May 2005
Case number: T 1358/05
Application number: 98910147.2
IPC class: C12N 15/86
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.840K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Adenovirus vectors specific for cells expressing carcinoembryonic antigen and methods of use thereof
Applicant name: CELL GENESYS, INC.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.08
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
Appeal inadmissible (yes)


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The applicant (appellant) filed on 25 May 2005 a notice of appeal against the decision of the examining division dated 23 March 2005 whereby the European Patent application No. 98 910 147.2 (published as WO-A-98/39467) entitled "Adenovirus vectors specific for cells expressing carcinoembryonic antigen and methods of use thereof" was refused under Article 97(1) EPC for grounds of added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC), lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) and lack of novelty and of inventive step (Articles 54 and 56 EPC, respectively). The appeal fee was paid on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit set by Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 28 November 2005 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 therefore the appeal had to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC. The appellant did not reply to said communication. Nor was a request for re-establishment of rights filed within the prescribed time limit.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC, 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