T 1289/04 () of 10.6.2005

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T128904.20050610
Date of decision: 10 June 2005
Case number: T 1289/04
Application number: 95117568.6
IPC class: H04N 7/24
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 51.432K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Apparatus for demodulating and decoding satellite, terrestrial and cable transmitted digital television data
Applicant name: THOMSON CONSUMER ELECTRONICS, INC.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
European Patent Convention 1973 R 65(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal contests the decision of the Examining Division of the European Patent Office refusing the European patent application No. 95 117 568.6. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 27 May 2004. The applicant filed a notice of appeal by letter received on 27 July 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same date. No statement of grounds was received. 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 15 December 2004 and sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the Registrar of the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds has been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.

The appellant's attention was drawn to the provision concerning the late receipt of documents pursuant to Rule 84a EPC and to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.

III. No answer was received within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC). Rule 84a EPC is no longer applicable.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation