T 0081/06 () of 9.1.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T008106.20070109
Date of decision: 09 January 2007
Case number: T 0081/06
Application number: 99914454.6
IPC class: C22C 21/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.200K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Aluminum alloy containing magnesium and silicon
Applicant name: NORSK HYDRO ASA
Opponent name: PECHINEY
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 122
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 84a
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office rejecting the opposition pursuant to Article 102(2) EPC. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to each party on 24 November 2005.

The Appellant (Opponent 01) filed a notice of appeal on 20 January 2006 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed.

II. By a communication dated 10 May 2006 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 invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer has been given to the Registry communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, 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