| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2007:T057706.20070226 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 26 February 2007 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0577/06 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 98951816.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04R 25/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Hearing aid comprising an array of microphones | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Technische Universiteit Delft Varibel B.V. |
||||||||
| Opponent name: | Siemens AG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statements of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeals are from the interlocutory decision of the opposition division dated 16 February 2006 concerning the maintenance in amended form of European patent No. 1025744, granted in respect of European patent application No. 98951816.2.
II. The appellants, ie. the patent proprietors (appellant I) and the opponent (appellant II), each filed a notice of appeal on 13 April 2006 and 26 April 2006, respectively. The payments of the appeal fee were recorded on the same days. Appellant II conditionally requested oral proceedings. No separate statements of grounds of appeal were filed.
III. By communications dated 1 August 2006, sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellants that it appeared that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed - by either appellant - and that the appeals could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellants were invited to file observations within two months and attention was drawn to Article 122 EPC and Rule 84a EPC.
IV. No observations by either of the appellants were received within the time limit set.
V. In a submission on 9 February 2007 appellant II (opponent) withdrew its request for oral proceedings.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statements setting out the grounds of appeal have been filed, the appeals are inadmissible, Article 108 EPC, last sentence, in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeals are rejected as inadmissible.
