14-15 November 2018
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T161415.20151207|
|Date of decision:||07 December 2015|
|Case number:||T 1614/15|
|IPC class:||H04B 10/17|
|Language of proceedings:||EN|
|Download and more information:||
|Title of application:||A controlled optical amplifier device and its corresponding feed back control method|
|Applicant name:||ALCATEL LUCENT|
|Relevant legal provisions:||
|Keywords:||Admissibility of appeal - (no)
Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Examining Division posted on 9 March 2015.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 7 May 2015 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. With a communication dated 15 September 2015, receipt of which was acknowledged by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that a 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 to the communication was received.
Reasons for the Decision
1. 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.
2. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC.
3. Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.