| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T103607.20090817 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 August 2009 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1036/07 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99961841.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G01R 33/54 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A method for using three points to define a 2D MR imaging section | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.01 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appellant (applicant) lodged an appeal, received on 28 February 2007, against the decision of the examining division, dispatched on 22 December 2006, refusing the European patent application No. 1 049 938 (application number 99961841.6). The appeal fee was paid on 28 February 2007.
II. A statement setting out the grounds of appeal was not filed within the time limit of four months prescribed by Article 108 EPC 1973.
III. By a communication dated 13 July 2007, the Registrar of the Board informed the appellant that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed and, therefore, it was to be expected that the appeal be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC 1973 and Rule 65(1) EPC 1973). The appellant was invited to file observations within two months from notification of the communication.
IV. The appellant filed no observations in response to the communication.
Reasons for the Decision
1. No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed within the time limit provided by Article 108 EPC 1973 in conjunction with Rule 78(2) EPC 1973. The notice of appeal contained nothing that could be considered as such a statement. Therefore, the appeal is inadmissible (Rule 65(1) EPC 1973).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
