T 0122/06 () of 28.7.2006

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T012206.20060728
Date of decision: 28 July 2006
Case number: T 0122/06
Application number: 02292964.0
IPC class: H04Q 7/36
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 52 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Method and device for simulating operating conditions of a mobile telecommunication system
Applicant name: Mitsubishi Electric Information Technology Centren Europe BV
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 108
Keywords: Missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing European patent application No. 02 292 964.0. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the applicant on 21 June 2005.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 22 August 2005. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day.

No separate statement of grounds was filed.

II. By a communication dated 1 February 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC.

III. No answer has been given to the registry's communication within the time limit.

Reasons for the Decision

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 statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).


For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.

Quick Navigation