| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2009:T157709.20091217 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 17 December 2009 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1577/09 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 99916368.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H04M 15/00 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Automated fraud management in transaction-based networks | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. | ||||||||
| 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 European patent application No. 99916368.6. The decision was dispatched by registered letter with advice of delivery to the applicant on 5 February 2009.
The appellant filed a notice of appeal by a letter received on 3 April 2009. The payment of the appeal fee was recorded on the same day.
No separate statement of grounds was filed.
II. By a communication dated 3 August 2009 sent by registered letter 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.
III. No answer has been given to the registry's communication within the time limit.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
