T 1116/15 () of 15.9.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T111615.20150915
Date of decision: 15 September 2015
Case number: T 1116/15
Application number: 03254279.7
IPC class: C04B 24/26
C04B 28/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 216.227K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Borehole cement composition
Applicant name: HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
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 decision of the Examining Division of 22 December 2014, posted on the same day, to refuse European patent application No. 03 254 279.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 25 February 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 8 June 2015, received 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) 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. The statement in the notice of appeal that "the subject matter of the claims of the main request... and the third auxiliary request meets the requirements of Articles 56, 84 and 123(2) EPC" does not amount to a sufficiently substantiated statement of grounds of appeal. In addition, no 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