Quick Navigation
In T 503/96 the board considered the criteria for the need for an additional search in relation to restrictive amendments. It referred to the Guidelines B-III, 3.5 (old version), which state, "In principle, and in so far as possible and reasonable, the search should cover the entire subject‑matter to which the claims are directed or to which they might reasonably be expected to be directed after they have been amended...”. The board stated that whether or not to commission an additional search in a particular case was a matter for the administrative discretion of the opposition division, but if an inappropriate criterion was invoked when exercising this discretion, doubt would inevitably be raised as to whether the discretion was reasonably exercised.
Since, in the case of amendment of the claims in the course of opposition or appeal proceedings, such amendments are to be fully examined as to their compatibility with the requirements of the EPC (G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408, point 19 of the reasons), it was not inappropriate for an opponent to make observations on a possible need for an additional search to enable this full examination to be carried out (Guidelines D-VI, 5 - old version). The judgment on whether an additional search was necessary and the obligation to perform this search if it was judged to be necessary were administrative matters for the EPO.