T 0714/06 () of 9.1.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T071406.20070109
Date of decision: 09 January 2007
Case number: T 0714/06
Application number: 99966186.1
IPC class: C22C 38/34
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.136K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Corrosion resistant austenitic stainless steel
Applicant name: ATI Properties, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.02
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 84a
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office dated 2 December 2005 refusing the European patent application No. 99 966 186.1. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the Applicant.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 1 February 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.

No Statement of Ground 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 24 May 2006, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, 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 and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPO and Rule 84a EPC.

III. No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Registry's 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