2.3. Surprising grounds or evidence

Lack of novelty (see point 14): there is no need that a prior art document explicitly mentions the claimed features. It is necessary and sufficient that an embodiment falling under the claim scope be directly and unambiguously derivable from the prior art document. That an alternative exists does not change this: it is possible that multiple alternatives can be considered directly und unambiguously derivable, even when none is explicitly mentioned. Right to be heard (see points 18 and 29): the right to be heard does not entail a right to an amendment, but a right to present comments on why a specific request should be admitted to the proceedings.

(1) As to unity of invention under Article 82 EPC, only if the application relates to more than one "invention", the notion of "a single general inventive concept" under Article 82 EPC and the concept of the "same or corresponding special technical features" under Rule 44(1) EPC have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding upon unity of invention (see Reasons, point 1). (2) As to a refund of further search fees under Rule 64(2) EPC, the decision to refuse a patent application may be understood to implicitly contain the decision to refuse the refund of a further search fee, if the examining division's intent is clear (see Reasons, point 4). (3) A statement such as "the next procedural step will be summons to oral proceedings during which the application will be refused" made prior to a final decision to refuse a patent application may infringe a party's right to be heard and thus may lead to a substantial procedural violation (see Reasons, point 5).