T 1577/09 () of 17.12.2009

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T157709.20091217
Date of decision: 17 December 2009
Case number: T 1577/09
Application number: 99916368.6
IPC class: H04M 15/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.105K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Automated fraud management in transaction-based networks
Applicant name: LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing European patent application No. 99916368.6. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the applicant on 5 February 2009.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 3 April 2009. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day.

No separate statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 3 August 2009 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, 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. No answer has been given to the registry's communication within the time limit.

Reasons for the Decision

As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation