| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2011:T250910.20110401 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 01 April 2011 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2509/10 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 05764066.6 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 51/04 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | A method of diagnosing prodromal forms of diseases associated with amyloid deposition | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | University of Pittsburgh - Of the Commonwealth | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the examining division posted on 17 June 2010, refusing European patent application No. 05764066.6.
The appellant (applicant) filed a notice of appeal received on 19 August 2010 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day. No statement of grounds of appeal was filed.
II. In a communication dated 28 December 2010, sent by registered post with advice of delivery, the registrar of the board informed the appellant that no statement of grounds of appeal had been filed and that it was to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible. The appellant was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No reply was filed to said communication.
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.
