T 0244/09 () of 16.9.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T024409.20090916
Date of decision: 16 September 2009
Case number: T 0244/09
Application number: 03250924.2
IPC class: B29C 59/06
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.528K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method of making a topographical support member for producing apertured films
Applicant name: McNeil-PPC, Inc.
Opponent name: The Procter & Gamble Company
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108 Sent 3
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Inadmissibility of appeal
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. This matter concerns an appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division announced at the oral proceedings held on 14 October 2008 revoking European Patent No. 1 336 466. The written decision was posted on 21 November 2008.

II. The appellant (proprietor) filed a notice of appeal on 28 January 2009 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. 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.

III. By a communication dated 12 May 2009, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery and received on 18 May 2009, 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.

IV. No response was made to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

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

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation