|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T092307.20080225|
|Date of decision:||25 February 2008|
|Case number:||T 0923/07|
|IPC class:||C11D 1/22|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||Improved alkyl aryl sulfonate surfactants|
|Applicant name:||THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY|
|Opponent name:||ExxonMobil Chem. Pat. Inc.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Missing Statement of Grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted 28 March 2007, revoking the European patent No. 1 002 031 pursuant to Article 102(1) EPC 1973.
The Appellant (Patentee) filed a notice of appeal with letter dated 1 June 2007 and paid the fee for appeal on 11 June 2007.
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC 1973.
The notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973.
No further submissions were filed by the Appellant.
In a communication dated 13 September 2007 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Board informed the Appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC 1973.
The Appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC 1973.
No answer has been given within the given time limit to the Board's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal according to Article 108 EPC 1973, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC 1973).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.