| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1995:T099993.19950309 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 09 March 1995 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0999/93 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 88120625.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | C25D 3/32 C25D 3/60 C25D 3/36 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | B | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Tin, lead or tin/lead alloy electrolytes for high speed electroplating | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | LeaRonal, Inc. | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | - | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.4.02 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Basis of decisions - lack of agreed text (no) | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
If, upon a communication under Rule 51(4) EPC based upon an auxiliary request of the applicant, the applicant states disapproval of the proposed text while insisting upon receiving an appealable decision regarding the main request, this is not a case of lack of a text agreed by the applicant. |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t930999eu1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
6 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Case Law Book: III Amendments
Case Law Book: IV Divisional Applications
XCLR IV B 3.3.3 Criteria for admitting amendments filed in reply to the Rule 71(3) EPC communication