For each objection the search opinion should indicate the part of the application which is deficient and the requirement of the EPC which is not met, either by referring to specific Articles or Rules, or by other clear indication; it should also give the reason for any objection where this is not immediately apparent. For example, where prior art is cited and only part of a cited document is relevant, the particular passage relied upon should be identified. If the cited prior art is such as to demonstrate lack of novelty or inventive step in the independent claim or claims, and if, consequently, there is lack of unity between dependent claims (see F‑V, 9), the applicant should be informed of this situation (see H‑IV, 4.2(i)). Substantive matters should normally be set out first. The search opinion should be drafted in such a manner as to facilitate later examination of the amended application and, in particular, to avoid the need for extensive rereading (see C‑IV, 2).
If in the search report the examiner has cited a document of category "X" or "Y" against a given claim, the examiner in the search opinion should raise a novelty or inventive step objection against the same claim. Where this relates to a dependent claim and detailed reasoning is given in support of objections to the related independent claim, only short comments for that dependent claim are required.