T 1527/06 () of 26.6.2007

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T152706.20070626
Date of decision: 26 June 2007
Case number: T 1527/06
Application number: 01202485.7
IPC class: B29C 53/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 20 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method for shaping honeycomb core
Applicant name: Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
Opponent name: Airbus SAS
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 2 August 2006 rejecting the opposition against the European patent No. 1 145 823.

The appellant (opponent) filed a notice of appeal on 20 September 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 8 January 2007, and received by the appellant on 11 January 2007, 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

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