| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2006:T020106.20060918 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 18 September 2006 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0201/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 03012292.3 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G06F 1/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | License management in computer systems that use dynamic service-to-server distribution | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | SAP AG | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds Withdrawal of request for oral proceedings |
||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appellant contests the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office dated 23 August 2005 refusing European patent application No. 03 012 292.3.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 24 October 2005 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. The notice of appeal contains an auxiliary request for oral proceedings.
A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the four-months time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC. Nor did the notice of appeal contain anything that might be considered as such statement.
II. In a communication dated 6 March 2006, the Board informed the appellant that no statement setting out the grounds of appeal had been received and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.
III. In a letter dated 17 August 2006 the appellant withdrew the request for oral proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC, the appeal is inadmissible pursuant to Rule 65(1) EPC.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
