GL C V 4.6.2 Second Rule 71(3) communication based on higher -ranking request initially rejected in first Rule 71(3) communication

In cases where the first Rule 71(3) communication was based on an auxiliary request (see H‑III, 3, in particular H‑III, 3.1 and 3.3 and sub-sections), the first communication under Rule 71(3) would have been accompanied by an indication of why the higher-ranking requests were not considered to be admissible or allowable (see C‑V, 1.1). If the applicant replies to this first Rule 71(3) communication indicating that he wishes a grant to be based on one of these higher-ranking requests which the examining division had previously held not to be allowable (see C‑V, 1.1), such a request will normally lead to examination being resumed (see C‑V, 4.7 and 4.7.1.1). The examining division may reverse its opinion, for example due to convincing argumentation or evidence filed by the applicant with his reply to the first Rule 71(3) communication. If the applicant is successful in this regard, the examining division will send a second communication under Rule 71(3) based on this higher-ranking request.

14 references found.

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

EPC Implementing Rules

EPO Guidelines - C Procedureal Aspects of Substantive Examination

EPO Guidelines - E General Procedural Matters

EPO Guidelines - H Amendments and Corrections

own subtype: guidelines