14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T097607.20071211|
|Date of decision:||11 December 2007|
|Case number:||T 0976/07|
|IPC class:||G02C 7/02|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Decentered noncorrective lens for eyewear|
|Applicant name:||OAKLEY, INC.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is against the decision of the examining division dated 8 December 2006 refusing European patent application No. 02011502.8.
The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal on 16 February 2007 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The appellant requested setting aside of the decision under appeal and the grant of a patent and, on an auxiliary basis, oral proceedings.
No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication dated 21 June 2007 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that the appeal was expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC.
By letter dated 30 November 2007, the appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
Whilst the notice of appeal was filed within the time limit set out in Article 108 EPC and the appeal fee was also paid within that time limit, no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit prescribed by Article 108 EPC. In addition, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds within the meaning of Article 108 EPC.
In reply to the Registry's communication dated 21 June 2007, the appellant expressly withdrew its previous request for oral proceedings and made no comment on the issue of the admissibility of the appeal.
In view of the above considerations, 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.