| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2008:T139408.20081201 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 01 December 2008 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1394/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 02792327.5 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04N 7/24 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Next generation television receiver | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | OpenTV, Corp. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Form of appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appellant contests the decision of the examining division dated 11 February 2008 refusing European patent application No. 02 792 327.5.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal received on 11 April 2008 and paid the appeal fee on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was received.
III. In a communication dated 4 August 2008 sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been received and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.
IV. No observations were filed in response to said communication, and the appellant confirmed in a phone call held on 25 November 2008 with the registry of the board that no written statement of grounds had ever been posted.
Reasons for the Decision
1. Article 108 EPC requires that a statement setting out the grounds of appeal shall be filed within four months of notification of the decision. Pursuant to Rule 101(1) EPC the appeal shall be rejected as inadmissible if it does not comply with Article 108 EPC.
2. In the present case no document was filed by the appellant which could be regarded as a statement setting out the grounds of appeal. Consequently the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible.
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
