Boards of Appeal symbol

Contact

Boards of Appeal

Contact us using an online form

Address:
Richard-Reitzner-Allee 8
85540 Haar
Germany

All contact information

Boards of Appeal and key decisions conference

14-15 November 2018
EPO Munich

Register now

 

T 1731/17 (Subtilase variants/NOVOZYMES) of 7.12.2017

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2017:T173117.20171207
Date of decision: 07 December 2017
Case number: T 1731/17
Application number: 10180046.4
IPC class: C12N 9/54
C11D 3/386
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 221.474K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Subtilase variants
Applicant name: Novozymes A/S
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.08
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds of appeal
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from a decision of an examining division posted on 14 February 2017, refusing the European patent application No. 10180046.4 (publication No. 2 284 258) with the title "Subtilase variants" under Article 97(2) EPC.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 7 April 2017 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. In the notice of appeal, oral proceedings were requested.

III. By communication of 16 August 2017, 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 contain 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). Since the appeal is inadmissible, none of the requests in the notice of appeal, including the request for oral proceedings, can be considered.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation