| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2019:T116219.20190821 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 21 August 2019 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1162/19 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 14763750.8 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C12N 15/11 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | SYNTHETIC ADENO-ASSOCIATED VIRUS INVERTED TERMINAL REPEATS | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.08 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing statement of grounds of appeal | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of an examining Division posted on 23 October 2018, refusing the European patent application No. 14 763 750.8.
II. The applicant (appellant) filed a notice of appeal on 21 December 2018 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 25 April 2019, which according to the advice of delivery was received by the appellant on 3 May 2019, the registry of the board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that a written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
IV. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC. Therefore, 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.
