T 2509/10 (Method of diagnosing/UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH) of 1.4.2011

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T250910.20110401
Date of decision: 01 April 2011
Case number: T 2509/10
Application number: 05764066.6
IPC class: A61K 51/04
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 15.460K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A method of diagnosing prodromal forms of diseases associated with amyloid deposition
Applicant name: University of Pittsburgh - Of the Commonwealth
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.3.02
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 contests the decision of the examining division posted on 17 June 2010, refusing European patent application No. 05764066.6.

The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal received on 19 August 2010 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.

II. In a communication dated 28 December 2010, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no 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 reply was filed to said communication.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.

2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation