T 0689/06 () of 15.12.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T068906.20061215
Date of decision: 15 December 2006
Case number: T 0689/06
Application number: 00203217.5
IPC class: B65H 39/042
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.239K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Setting a system for assembling mail items
Applicant name: Neopost Industrie B.V.
Opponent name: PFE International Limited
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 posted 31 January 2006, rejecting the opposition pursuant to Article 102(2) EPC.

The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 30 March 2006 and paid the appeal fee at the same time. However, no statement of the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit pursuant to Article 108 EPC, third sentence.

II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery dated 29 June 2006, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of the 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. Furthermore, the appellant's attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC (re-establishment of rights) and Rule 84a EPC.

III. No answer to the Registry's communication has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

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. Consequently, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC, third sentence.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation