| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2002:T075902.20021126 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 26 November 2002 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0759/02 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96903727.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H03M 13/12 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A digital communication system having a punctured convolutional coding system and method | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | ERICSSON INC. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing European patent application No. 96 903 727.4. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery on 17 January 2002.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 19 March 2002 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. By a communication sent by registered letter with advice of delivery on 21 August 2002, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. The appellant filed no observations in response to said communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
