G 0001/89 (Polysuccinate esters) vom 02.05.1990
- Europäischer Rechtsprechungsidentifikator
- ECLI:EP:BA:1990:G000189.19900502
- Datum der Entscheidung
- 2. Mai 1990
- Aktenzeichen
- G 0001/89
- Antrag auf Überprüfung von
- -
- Anmeldenummer
- -
- IPC-Klasse
- C10M 145/22
- Verfahrenssprache
- Englisch
- Verteilung
- Im Amtsblatt des EPA veröffentlicht (A)
- Download
- Entscheidung auf Englisch
- Amtsblattfassungen
- Weitere Entscheidungen für diese Akte
- -
- Zusammenfassungen für diese Entscheidung
- -
- Bezeichnung der Anmeldung
- -
- Name des Antragstellers
- non publié
- Name des Einsprechenden
- -
- Kammer
- -
- Leitsatz
The agreement between the European Patent Organisation and WIPO dated 7 October 1987, including the obligation under its Article 2 for the EPO to be guided by the PCT guidelines for international search, is binding upon the EPO when acting as an ISA and upon the Boards of Appeal of the EPO when deciding on protests against the charging of additional search fees under the provisions of Article 17(3)(a) PCT. Consequently, as foreseen in these guidelines, an international application may, under Article 17(3)(a) PCT, be considered not to comply with the requirement of unity of invention, not only "a priori" but also "a posteriori", i.e. after taking prior art into consideration. However, such consideration has only the procedural effect of initiating the special procedure laid down in Article 17 and Rule 40 PCT and is, therefore, not a "substantive examination" in the normal sense of that term.
- Relevante Rechtsnormen
- European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(b) 1973European Patent Convention Art 154(3) 1973Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13Patent Cooperation Treaty R 33Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40
- Schlagwörter
- Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under PCT
Non-unity a posteriori - Orientierungssatz
- -
- Zitierende Akten
- T 0501/91T 0579/93T 0442/11T 1354/13T 2707/16T 2441/18T 2703/18W 0004/93W 0008/93W 0009/93W 0001/94W 0003/94W 0001/95W 0005/95W 0006/95W 0001/96W 0002/96W 0004/96W 0007/96W 0001/97W 0006/97W 0008/97W 0004/98W 0006/98W 0003/99W 0005/99W 0009/99W 0010/99W 0011/99W 0014/99W 0015/99W 0016/99W 0001/00W 0009/00W 0011/00W 0012/00W 0014/00W 0015/00W 0017/00W 0018/00W 0023/00W 0001/01W 0011/01W 0012/01W 0016/01W 0018/01W 0020/01W 0021/01W 0022/01W 0023/01W 0024/01W 0004/02W 0005/02W 0006/02W 0011/02W 0019/02W 0020/02W 0002/03W 0004/03W 0005/03W 0006/03W 0009/03W 0010/03W 0011/03W 0012/03W 0014/03W 0016/03W 0017/03W 0020/03W 0021/03W 0029/03W 0002/04W 0003/04W 0004/04W 0006/04W 0010/04W 0018/04W 0023/04W 0025/04W 0026/04W 0028/04W 0029/04W 0035/04W 0008/05W 0009/05W 0013/05W 0020/05W 0022/05W 0023/05W 0024/05W 0026/05W 0002/06W 0003/06W 0005/06W 0007/06W 0011/06W 0013/06W 0018/06W 0020/06W 0021/06W 0022/06W 0023/06W 0001/07W 0005/07W 0006/07W 0010/07W 0013/07W 0018/07W 0026/07W 0037/07W 0038/07W 0013/08W 0030/08W 0034/08W 0036/08W 0039/08W 0041/08W 0002/09W 0003/09W 0004/09W 0007/09W 0009/09
ORDER
For these reasons, it is decided that:
The questions of law referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.1 in its decision W 12/89 are answered as follows:
The agreement between the European Patent Organisation and WIPO dated 7 October 1987, including the obligation under its Article 2 for the EPO to be guided by the PCT guidelines for international search, is binding upon the EPO when acting as an ISA and upon the Boards of Appeal of the EPO when deciding on protests against the charging of additional fees under the provisions of Article 17(3)(a) PCT. Consequently, as foreseen in these guidelines, an international application may, under Article 17(3)(a) PCT, be considered not to comply with the requirement of unity of invention, not only "a priori" but also "a posteriori", i.e. after taking prior art into consideration. However, such consideration has only the procedural effect of initiating the special procedure laid down in Article 17 and Rule 40 PCT and is, therefore, not a "substantive examination" in the normal sense of that term.