GL B XI 7 No search opinion is issued

Where applicants have filed the request for examination according to Rule 70(1) before the search report has been communicated to them and they have waived the right to receive the communication under Rule 70(2) (see C‑II, 1(ii)), the despatch of the search report to the applicant causes the application to enter the competence of the examining division (

GL B XI 6 The search opinion in cases of a limitation of the search

Any argumentation and objections presented in the search opinion must be consistent with limitations of the search and the reasons therefor.

GL B XI 5 Unity in relation to the search opinion

Where the search division finds that the claimed invention does not meet the requirement of unity of invention (Art. 82 and Rule 44(1) and (2)), the search division sends the applicant an invitation to pay additional search fees and the partial search report relating to the invention or unitary group of inventions first mentioned in the claims (see B‑VII, 1.1,

GL B XI 4.1 Use of "P" and "E" documents in the search opinion

Where a document relating to potential prior art according to Art. 54(3) is referred to in the search opinion, two situations may arise, depending on whether or not the search division can conclusively establish that said prior-art document has an earlier relevant date than that of the application. If so, the search division raises an objection under Art. 54(3). If not, it assumes that any priority which cannot be checked is valid.

GL B XI 4 Priority claim and the search opinion

When it is not possible to check the validity of the priority claim at the search stage, because:

(i)the search is carried out before the date on which the priority document must be supplied (up to 16 months from the earliest claimed priority – Rule 53(1))

(ii)

GL B XI 3.9 Positive opinion

After the analysis referred to in B‑XI, 3.1 to 3.8 has been made, the search division may come to the conclusion that the application and the invention to which it relates both satisfy the requirements of the EPC. In this case the search opinion contains a statement giving a general positive opinion on the application documents.

GL B XI 3.8 Making suggestions

It must be emphasised that it is not part of the duty of the search division to require the applicant to amend the application in a particular way to meet an objection, since the drafting of the application is the applicants' responsibility and they are free to amend in any way they choose provided that the amendment removes the deficiency and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the EPC.

GL B XI 3.7 Search division's approach

The search division does not require or suggest amendments merely because it thinks they will improve the wording of the description or claims. A pedantic approach is undesirable; what is important is that the meaning of the description and claims is clear. However, any serious inconsistencies between the claims and the description as filed are objected to (see F‑IV, 4.3).

GL B XI 3.6 EPC requirements

Although the search division must bear in mind all the requirements of the EPC, the requirements which are most likely to require attention in the majority of cases are, in particular: sufficiency of disclosure (see F‑III); clarity and support in the description, especially of the independent claims (see F‑IV, 4 and 6); novelty (see G‑VI); and inventive s

GL B XI 3.5 Contribution to the known art

When analysing the application, the search division concentrates on trying to understand what technical contribution the invention as defined in the claims adds to the known art. This should normally be sufficiently clear from the application as filed.