T 2139/11 (Missing statement of grounds) of 9.5.2012

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2012:T213911.20120509
Date of decision: 09 May 2012
Case number: T 2139/11
Application number: 06025725.0
IPC class: G06T 7/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 185.795K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Environmental condition detecting system using geospatial images and associated methods
Applicant name: HARRIS CORPORATION
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.04
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108 (2007) Sent 3
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of the appeal (no)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Examining Division posted on 24 March 2011.

II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 24 May 2011 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.

III. By communication of 14 October 2011, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.

IV. No reply has been received.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation