When determining unity of invention, a finding of lack of clarity of the claims is on its own not sufficient grounds for a finding of lack of unity.[Art. 84; ]

Normally, too, the sequence of the claims has no impact on the determination of unity of invention. However, it will have an impact on which invention is to be considered the first invention mentioned in the claims (see F-V, 3.4).

Moreover, the fact that the claimed separate inventions belong to different groups of the classification is not in itself a reason for a finding of lack of unity.

If an application contains claims of different categories or several independent claims of the same category, this is not in itself a reason for an objection of lack of unity of invention (the relationship between Rule 43(2) and Art. 82 is explained in more detail in F-V, 3.2.1).[Rule 43(2); ]

Lack of unity does not arise because of one claim containing a number of individual features, where these features do not present a technical interrelationship (i.e. a combination), but merely a juxtaposition (see G‑VII, 7).

By definition, no lack of unity can be present between an independent claim and its dependent claims, even if the features of the dependent claims are juxtaposed with the features of the independent claim (see F-V, 3.2.3).[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]