T 0959/07 () of 28.2.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T095907.20080228
Date of decision: 28 February 2008
Case number: T 0959/07
Application number: 99971026.2
IPC class: C11D 17/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.640K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Processes for making granular detergent composition having improved appearance and solubility
Applicant name: THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Opponent name: HENKEL KGaA
Board: 3.3.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 102(1)
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 122
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing Statement of Grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 3 April 2007, revoking the European patent No. 1 124 937 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC 1973.

The Appellant (Patentee) filed a notice of appeal with letter dated 8 June 2007 and paid the fee for appeal on 11 June 2007.

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC 1973.

The notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973.

No further submissions were filed by the Appellant.

In a communication dated 17 September 2007 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Board informed the Appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC 1973.

The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC 1973.

No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Board's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC 1973, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC 1973).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation