http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/j080004eu1.html
Content reproduced from the Website of the European Patent Office as permitted by their terms of use.
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:J000408.20080704 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 04 July 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | J 0004/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06014124.9 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | F02B 25/22 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A flange assembly for supplying additional air to two-stroke engine | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Husqvarna Aktiebolag | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | – | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.1.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | – | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
– |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Receiving Section posted 21 August 2007 according to which the request of the applicant dated 24 March 2007 and confirmed on 19 June 2007 to set aside the Noting of loss of rights pursuant to Rule 69(1) EPC 1973 dated 19 April 2007 was rejected. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal on 24 October 2007 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
II. By a communication dated 13 March 2008, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No observations were received in response to said communication.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed. Furthermore, the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 and Rule 99(2) EPC. The appeal therefore has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.