For details on third-party observations please refer to GL/PCT-EPO E-IGL/PCT-EPO E-II.
In cases (b) and (c) above, the IPER is established taking into account the third-party observations and the applicant's comments, and referring to the new documents where appropriate in Section V of the IPER.
If the documents are relevant but do not add anything to what was already available, it is left to the examiner's discretion whether they need to be quoted in the IPER. For example, if the documents are a better starting point for the problem-solution approach, the examiner may wish to review his argumentation in support of the positive assessment of inventive step.
Third-party observations which are not relevant or not sufficiently understandable (see GL/PCT-EPO E-IIGL/PCT-EPO E- I for observations not in an EPO official language) do not need to be dealt with substantially in the WO-IPEA and/or in the IPER. A comment is included in Section V of the WO-IPEA and/or in the IPER indicating that the third-party observations have been taken into account and found not to be relevant or that the third-party observations could not be taken into account and why.
Date retrieved: 24 November 2017
5 references found.Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.
EPO PCT GL - C Procedureal Aspects Chapter II
EPO PCT GL - E General Procedural Matters
XGL-PCT E II – Observations by third parties Third parties may, anonymously if so desired, file observations under the PCT which, unlike observations under the EPC, should exclusively refer to prior art relevant to the novelty and/or inventive [..]