T 1710/14 () of 9.2.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T171014.20150209
Date of decision: 09 February 2015
Case number: T 1710/14
Application number: 03726949.5
IPC class: B23K 26/00
B23K 26/24
B23K 26/26
B23K 26/08
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 218.933K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: LASER WELDING WITH BEAM OSCILLATION
Applicant name: Alcoa Inc.
THE PENN STATE RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Opponent name: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
Board: 3.2.06
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the interlocutory decision of the Opposition Division dated 2 June 2014 by which it found that in amended form the European patent No. 1 534 460 and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of the EPC.

II. The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 8 August 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 30 October 2014, received by the appellant on 3 November 2014, 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) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply was received.

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