T 0686/97 () of 22.9.1998

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1998:T068697.19980922
Date of decision: 22 September 1998
Case number: T 0686/97
Application number: 90201709.4
IPC class: C08G 18/32
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: C
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 52 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished | Unpublished v2
Title of application: Polyurethane polyols and high solids coatings therefrom
Applicant name: Akzo Nobel N.V.
Opponent name: Herberts GmbH
Board: 3.3.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 65(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 122
Keywords: Appeal - missing statement of grounds
Restitutio in integrum - request refused


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:
T 0902/05
T 0257/07
T 0261/07
T 1465/07
T 1962/08

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 28. April 1997 revoking the European patent No. 409 300. The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 18 June 1997 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds 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 11 December 1997 sent by registered post, 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.

III. By a letter dated 22 December 1997 the appellant filed a request for restitutio in integrum (Article 122 EPC), paid the appropriate fee, and filed the statement of grounds.

IV. Oral proceedings before the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.3. were held on 12 May 1998 in which the Board refused the request for restitutio in integrum. The decision was posted on 28 August 1998.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed in due time, 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