|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T197609.20091112|
|Date of decision:||12 November 2009|
|Case number:||T 1976/09|
|IPC class:||A61K 7/075|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Compositions and method for targeted controlled delivery of active ingredients and sensory markers onto hair, skin and fabric|
|Applicant name:||Salvona L.L.C.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appellant contests the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office dated 22 April 2009 refusing European patent application No. 03255007.1.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 19 June 2009 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.
II. In a communication dated 9 October 2009, 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. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.
III. In response to said communication the appellant by a letter dated 19 October 2009 confirmed that the grounds of appeal were not filed and mentioned that a refund of the appeal fee paid may be appropriate.
IV. In a communication of the registrar dated 30 October 2009 the appellant was informed that according to Rule 103(b) EPC, the appeal fee can be reimbursed only when the appeal is withdrawn before the filing of the statement of grounds and before the period for filing that statement has expired.
Reasons for the Decision
1. As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule l01(1) EPC.
2. The appeal fee can be reimbursed only under a provision of the EPC providing for such reimbursement. The only relevant provision of the EPC is now Rule 103 EPC. But in this case neither the conditions of Rule 103(1)(a) EPC that there has been an interlocutory revision or that the Board of Appeal deems the appeal to be allowable, nor the condition of Rule 103(1)(b) EPC that the appeal is withdrawn before filing the statement of grounds and before the period for filing that statement has expired, have been met, so reimbursement under this Rule is not appropriate.
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.