T 1928/10 () of 11.1.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T192810.20110111
Date of decision: 11 January 2011
Case number: T 1928/10
Application number: 06002184.7
IPC class: B23F 21/10
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 13.420K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Grinding wheel for relief machining for resharpenable pinion-type cutter
Applicant name: Harmonic Drive Systems Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.06
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 is directed against the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office of 16 March 2010, posted on 7 April 2010.

II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal on 17 June 2010 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In addition to grant of a European Patent on the basis of the documents on file, oral proceedings were requested.

III. By communication of 21 September 2010, receipt of which was confirmed by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1). The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

With letter dated 23 December 2010, the appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal, nor any other document filed, contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation