Cited 4 times
1. Although the procedure on entry of an application into the European phase where the EPO has acted as the International Searching Authority has changed with the coming into force of EPC 2000, the responsibility for establishing whether or not the application meets the requirements of unity of invention still ultimately rests with the Examining Division, and the opinion of the EPO acting as the International Searching Authority on lack of unity is not final or binding on the Examining Division.
2. In the case of an a posteriori objection of non unity, even if justified, the claims may still usefully serve as a basis for later limiting the claimed subject-matter to a more specifically defined but now unitary and searched invention.
3. The payment of claims fees for claims exceeding the number of ten may thus have a useful purpose on its own independently of whether all the claims concern unitary subject-matter.
Keywords: Refund of claims fees (no)
Abandonment of subject-matter (no)
Arbitrary delay by Office (no)
Permission to prosecute all claims subject to payment of additional search fees (no)
References: EPC Art 82 / EPC Art 153 / EPC R 43(2) / EPC R 43(5) / EPC R 46 / EPC R 161 / EPC R 162(1) / EPC R 162(2) / EPC R 162(3) / EPC R 162(4) / EPC R 164(2) / EPC 1973 Art 83 / EPC 1973 Art 157(2) / EPC 1973 R 45 / EPC 1973 R 46 / EPC 1973 R 109 / EPC 1973 R 110(1) / EPC 1973 R 110(2) / EPC 1973 R 110(3) / EPC 1973 R 110(4) / EPC 1973 R 112 /
Date retrieved: 8 October 2014