In T 1242/04 (OJ 2007, 421) the board noted that R. 45 EPC 1973 applied to cases which did not comply with the provisions of the EPC to such an extent that it was not "possible" to carry out a "meaningful search" into the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the claims. Thus a R. 45 EPC 1973 declaration was allowed only where a search was not possible. In other cases the search division would draw up a partial search report, "so far as is practicable". In the board's view, R. 45 EPC 1973 related only to the practicability of a search and not to the potential relevance of its results in subsequent substantive examination. The board noted that it was not evident that claims directed only to technical features that the search division deemed "trivial" could prevent a meaningful search into the state of the art, which in fact ought to be particularly simple in such a case. The board held that where the application's subject-matter had non-technical aspects, a declaration under R. 45 EPC 1973 might be issued only in exceptional cases in which the claimed subject matter clearly had no technical character. In the board's view, however, it was not always necessary in such circumstances to carry out an additional search in the documented prior art.

The board in T 779/11, referring to T 1242/04, pointed out that although R. 45 EPC 1973 was not identical to Art. 17(2)(a) PCT (in conjunction with R. 39.1 PCT), there appeared to be no good reason why the same findings should not apply to the issuing of a declaration under Art. 17(2)(a) PCT. Cf. T 918/14.