T 1975/07 () of 8.9.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T197507.20080908
Date of decision: 08 September 2008
Case number: T 1975/07
Application number: 97930527.3
IPC class: B22D 7/10
B22C 9/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 13.477K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Process for fabricating couplings and other elements for hot topping and supply for cast-iron molds, and formulation for producing such couplings and elements
Applicant name: Ashland Inc.
Opponent name: Foseco International Limited
GTP Schäfer Giesstechnische Produkte GmbH
Board: 3.2.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division of European Patent Office dated 26 September 2007, concerning maintenance of European patent No. 913 215 in amended form.

The Appellant (Patent Proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 6 December 2007 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 12 March 2008, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement of grounds has 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. The Appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the ground of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC 1973, Rule 101(1) EPC 2000).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation