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.

The basic principle behind the requirement of unity is that a patent is granted for each invention separately, i.e. in order to proceed to grant, a European patent application is required to contain claims relating to one invention only (G 2/92, Reasons 2).

This requirement of unity is further justified by the principle of equal treatment of applicants: any applicant is entitled to the same rendered service against the paid fees, i.e.

Where certain subject-matter is clearly disclosed in a claim of the application as filed, but is not mentioned anywhere in the description, it is permissible to amend the description so that it includes this subject-matter. Where the claim is dependent, it may suffice if it is mentioned in the description that the claim sets out a particular embodiment of the invention (see F‑II, 4.5).

Although an objection of lack of support is an objection under Art. 84, it can often, as in the above examples, also be considered as an objection of insufficient disclosure of the invention under Art. 83 (see F‑III, 1 to F-III, 3), the objection being that the disclosure is insufficient to enable the skilled person to carry out the "invention" over the whole