T 1321/14 () of 4.12.2014

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T132114.20141204
Date of decision: 04 December 2014
Case number: T 1321/14
Application number: 09731065.0
IPC class: G01R 33/565
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 216.252K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: RF PULSE DISTORTION CORRECTION IN MRI
Applicant name: Regents of the University of Minnesota
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - 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 to refuse the European patent application No. 09 731 065.0. The decision was notified by registered letter with advice of delivery dated 10 December 2013.

II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal against said decision by a letter received on 12 February 2014 and paid the prescribed appeal fee on the same day.

III. No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as constituting such a statement.

IV. In a communication dated 20 June 2014 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Board informed the appellant that no written statement of grounds had been received and that the appeal should be expected to be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108 EPC, third sentence, 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 which reached the addressee on 25 June 2014.

V. No reply was received.

Reasons for the Decision

No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided 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