European Patent Office

T 1764/08 of 02.12.2010

European Case Law Identifier
ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T176408.20101202
Date of decision
2 December 2010
Case number
T 1764/08
Petition for review of
-
Application number
99960701.3
IPC class
H04N 7/26
Language of proceedings
English
Distribution
Distributed to board chairmen (C)
OJ versions
No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case
-
Abstracts for this decision
-
Application title
Motion vector processing
Applicant name
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Opponent name
-
Board
3.5.04
Headnote
-
Relevant legal provisions
Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents Art 7(1)Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 41(2)Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Art 64(2)Decision President of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the filing of patent applications and other documents by facsimileDecision_AC of 28 June 2001 on the transitional provisions under_Art_7of the Act revising the EPC_Art_001Decision_President_of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the electronic filing of patent applications and other documents_Art_002(1)Decision_President_of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the electronic filing of patent applications and other documents_Art_002(3)Decision_President_of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the electronic filing of patent applications and other documents_Art_012Decision_President_of the European Patent Office dated 12 July 2007 concerning the electronic filing of patent applications and other documents_Art_013European Patent Convention Art 106European Patent Convention Art 108European Patent Convention Art 122(1)European Patent Convention Art 122(2)European Patent Convention R 101(1)European Patent Convention R 126(2)European Patent Convention R 131(4)European Patent Convention R 136(1)European Patent Convention R 2(1)European Patent Convention R 99Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 13
Keywords
Admissibility of appeal - grounds of appeal filed via epoline (no)
Principle of good faith (no)
EPO document submission system unnecessarily complicated (no)
Re-establishment of rights (no)
All due care (no)
Catchword
See Sections 9 to 10 and 16 to 21

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The request for re-establishment of rights is rejected.

2. The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.