| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T031906.20070206 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 06 February 2007 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0319/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 96903854.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G10L 19/04 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | C | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Depth-first algebraic-codebook search for fast coding of speech | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Université de Sherbrooke | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ) | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Appeal inadmissible | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the opposition division, dispatched on 21 December 2005, rejecting the oppositions against European patent No. 0 813 736 (application number 96903854.6).
The appellant (opponent I, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson) filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 21 February 2006 and paid the fee for the appeal on the same day.
No statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit of four months prescribed by Article 108 EPC. The notice of appeal contained nothing that could be considered as such a statement.
II. By a communication dated 4 July 2006 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no written statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC and Rule 65(1) EPC). The appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication. Moreover, the appellant's attention was drawn to Rule 84a EPC, to the decision of the President of the EPO dated 11 December 1998 (OJ EPO 1999, 45) and to Article 122 EPC.
III. The appellant filed no observations in response to the 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 that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
