| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2010:T059010.20100624 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 24 June 2010 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0590/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 06111864.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | H03M13/41 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Exploiting known padding data to improve block decode success rate | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | Research In Motion Limited | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.5.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | 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 5 October 2009 refusing European patent application No. 06 111 864.2.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal received on 15 December 2009 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed within the four-month time limit provided for in Article 108 EPC.
IV. In a communication dated 26 March 2010 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 the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was informed that any observations should be filed within two months.
V. No observations were filed within two months of the above communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement of grounds of appeal has been filed and as the notice of appeal does not contain anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds of appeal according to Article 108 and Rule 99(2) 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.
