T 0087/88 (Further search fee) of 29.11.1991

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1991:T008788.19911129
Date of decision: 29 November 1991
Case number: T 0087/88
Application number: 85103050.2
IPC class: B67D 1/12
G01F 1/06
G01F 15/14
G01F 15/18
Language of proceedings: DE
Distribution:
Download and more information:
No PDF available
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: DE | EN | FR
Versions: OJ
Title of application: -
Applicant name: Digmesa
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.2.01
Headnote: 1. The legal consequence of non-payment of a further search fee (Rule 46(1) EPC) for a subject-matter in a European patent application cannot be considered as the abandonment of that subject-matter in that application (differing view: decision T 178/84, OJ EPO 1989, 157).
2. Where no search report is drawn up for the subject-matter concerned owing to non-payment of a further search fee and an amendment is made pursuant to Rule 86(2) EPC, an Examining Division is obliged to examine the unity (Article 82 EPC) of the invention claimed in the documents as originally filed only insofar as amended claims relating to that subject-matter are filed rendering an additional search necessary.
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 17
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 76
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 82
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 97(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 106(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 113(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 123(2)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 30
European Patent Convention 1973 R 46(1)
European Patent Convention 1973 R 67
European Patent Convention 1973 R 68(2)
Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)
Keywords: Lack of unity objected to during search
Search Division's communication not an appealable decision
Review carried out by Examining Division when further search fee not paid and new claims filed
Non-payment of further search fee not abandonment
Reimbursement of fee for appeal refused
Remission to Examining Division (yes)
Substantial procedural violation (no)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
J 0014/12
T 0261/96
T 0319/96
T 0631/97
T 0208/00
T 0551/03
T 1031/12

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880087ep1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

12 references found.

Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.

PCT Articles

Offical Journal of the EPO

Case Law Book: II Conditions to be met by an Application

Case Law Book: V Priority

General Case Law