W 0044/88 (Surface-active substances) of 31.5.1989

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1989:W004488.19890531
Date of decision: 31 May 1989
Case number: W 0044/88
Application number: -
IPC class: -
Language of proceedings: DE
Distribution:
Download and more information:
No PDF available
-
Bibliographic information is available in: DE | EN | FR
Versions: OJ
Title of application: -
Applicant name: not published
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.4.01
Headnote: I. Under the provisions of the PCT and its Regulations, the International Searching Authority is empowered and obliged to determine whether an international application meets the requirement of unity of invention in Rule 13 PCT in the light of prior art discovered during the search ("a posteriori") (section 2.3 of the Reasons for the Decision, notwithstanding W 03/88, OJ EPO 1990, 126). (In its decision W 35/88 dated 7 June 1989, the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.1 arrived at the same conclusion regarding unity 3 03/88 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.1.).
2. When acting as an International Searching Authority the EPO must adhere to the Guidelines for International Search to be Carried Out under the PCT insofar as these are not at odds with the PCT or any of its Regulations (points 2.3.13 to 2.3.15 of the Reasons for the Decision).
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention 1973 Art 154(3)
Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)
Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13
Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40(1)
Keywords: Admissibility of an "a posteriori" objection of lack of unity (yes)
Single general inventive concept (yes)
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
-
Citing decisions:
G 0001/89
G 0002/89
W 0020/05
W 0008/06
W 0004/08

Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/w880044ep1.html

Date retrieved: 17 May 2021

9 references found.

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

PCT Articles

PCT Implementing Rules

Offical Journal of the EPO

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

Case Law of the Enlarged Board