14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T141514.20141001|
|Date of decision:||01 October 2014|
|Case number:||T 1415/14|
|IPC class:||G10L 21/00
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RESPONDING TO NATURAL LANGUAGE SPEECH UTTERANCE|
|Applicant name:||Voicebox Technologies, Inc.|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds|
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing the European patent application 06789406.3. The decision was dispatched to the applicant on 13 January 2014.
II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal on 13 March 2014 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 10 July 2014, sent as registered letter with advice of delivery, 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. From the advice of delivery it may be seen that the communication was received on 17 July 2014.
IV. The appellant did not reply to the communication of 10 July 2014, and no request for re-establishment of rights was filed.
Reasons for the Decision
1. 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 a statement setting out the grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.