T 0852/06 () of 21.2.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T085206.20070221
Date of decision: 21 February 2007
Case number: T 0852/06
Application number: 98917997.3
IPC class: B31F 1/07
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 19.530K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: High pressure embossing and paper produced thereby
Opponent name: Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is against the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 16 March 2006 maintaining the European patent No. 0 977 661 in amended form.

The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 26 May 2006 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement within the meaning of Article 108 EPC, third sentence.

II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery on 29 August 2006, and received by the appellant on 4 September 2006, 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. The attention of the appellant was also drawn to Rule 84a EPC and to Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer has been given to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC. Consequently, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC in conjunction with Article 108 EPC, third sentence.


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation