| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T232908.20090316 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 16 March 2009 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2329/08 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 04790399.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | G05B 19/401 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A method, device and computer program for evaluating an object using a virtual representation of said object | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Metris N.V. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal lies from the decision of the examining division of the European Patent Office refusing the European patent application 04790399.2. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the applicant on 3 July 2008.
II. The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 2 September 2008. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day.
No statement of grounds was filed.
III. By a communication dated 30 December 2008, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registry of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
IV. No answer has been given to the registry's communication within the time limit.
V. With letter of 11 March 2009 submitted by online
filing, the appellant withdrew his previous request for oral proceedings.
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 126(2) EPC and the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
