T 1459/07 () of 26.6.2008

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T145907.20080626
Date of decision: 26 June 2008
Case number: T 1459/07
Application number: 98964025.5
IPC class: B29C 59/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 16 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Microporous films having zoned breathability
Opponent name: The Procter & Gamble Company
Board: 3.2.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention Art 101(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 19 June 2007 maintaining the European patent No. 1042114 in amended form.

The appellant (patentee) filed a notice of appeal on 29 August 2007 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 14 December 2007 and received by the appellant on 17 December 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 1973 and to Article 122 EPC 1973.

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, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Rule 101(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