T 1614/15 () of 7.12.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T161415.20151207
Date of decision: 07 December 2015
Case number: T 1614/15
Application number: 06300767.8
IPC class: H04B 10/17
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 215 KB)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: A controlled optical amplifier device and its corresponding feed back control method
Applicant name: ALCATEL LUCENT
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 108
European Patent Convention R 101
European Patent Convention R 99(2)
Keywords: Admissibility of appeal - (no)
Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds


Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:

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.

Quick Navigation