W 0003/94 (Ketonoxim-O-ether) of 15.12.1994
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1994:W000394.19941215
- Date of decision
- 15 December 1994
- Case number
- W 0003/94
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- PCT/EP1993/00916
- IPC class
- C07D 213/53
- Language of proceedings
- German
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- -
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Akarizide, insektizide und nematizide substituierte (Hetero)-Aryl-Alkyl-Ketonoxim-O-Ether, Verfahren zu ihrer Herstellung, sie enthaltende Mittel und ihre Verwendung als Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel
- Applicant name
- Hoechst AG
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.3.01
- Headnote
1. An invitation to pay additional search fees fulfils the requirements of Rule 40.1 PCT only if substantiated in such a way as to indicate why unity is lacking, on the basis of the criteria laid down in the PCT Search Guidelines.
2. This is particularly the case where the unity of alternatives "of a similar nature" in a Markush claim is contested on the basis that they do not share a significant structural element (Reasons point 10).
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 154(3) 1973Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13(1)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13(2)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40(1)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40(2)(c)
- Keywords
- Obligation under Rule 40.1 PCT to specify reasons not fulfilled in view of PCT guidelines
- Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
Reimbursement of the additional search fees and the protest fee paid is ordered.