J 0009/88 (Missing Statement of Grounds) of 21.9.1988

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1988:J000988.19880921
Date of decision: 21 September 1988
Case number: J 0009/88
Application number: 85900333.7
IPC class: C12P 21/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 122 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Human monoclonal antibody against Rh(d) Antigen and its uses
Applicant name: Leland Standford Junior University
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.1.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: -


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:
T 0822/93

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Receiving Section of the European Patent Office dated 15 September 1987 rejecting the application for re-establishment of rights into the period for payment of the national fee, search fee and designation fee and stating that the application is deemed to be withdrawn. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 15 September 1987. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a telex dated 25 November 1987. The telex was confirmed by a letter received on 30 November 1987 and the appeal fee was paid on 25 November 1987. No Statement of Grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a Statement of Grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.

II. By a communication dated 28 April 1988 and sent by registered post, the registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no Statement of Grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. The Appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons, it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation