T 1925/15 () of 13.1.2016

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2016:T192515.20160113
Date of decision: 13 January 2016
Case number: T 1925/15
Application number: 09715349.8
IPC class: G10L 19/14
G10L 21/02
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 217.207K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: SIGNAL PROCESSING SYSTEM HAVING SINGULAR POINT AND INFORMATION STORAGE MEDIUM
Applicant name: Communication And Broadcasting International
Laboratory Co., Ltd.
Nakazawa, Isao
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
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. 09 715 349.8. The decision was notified on 17 April 2015.

II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal against said decision by letter dated 17 June 2015 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 such statement.

IV. In a communication dated 6 October 2015 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been received and that the appeal should be expected to 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 which reached the addressee on 12 October 2015.

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.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation