G 0001/89 (Polysuccinate esters) of 02.05.1990

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:1990:G000189.19900502
Date of decision: 2 May 1990
Case number: G 0001/89
Petition for review of: -
Application number: -
IPC class: C10M 145/22
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: -
Applicant name: non publié
Opponent name: -
Board: -
Headnote: 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.
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(a) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 112(1)(b) 1973 European Patent Convention Art 154(3) 1973 Patent Cooperation Treaty Art 17(3)(a)Patent Cooperation Treaty R 13 Patent Cooperation Treaty R 33 Patent Cooperation Treaty R 40
Keywords: Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under PCT
Non-unity a posteriori
Catchword: -
Cited cases: W 0003/88 W 0044/88
Citing cases: T 0501/91 T 0579/93 T 0442/11 T 1354/13 T 2707/16 T 2441/18 T 2703/18 W 0004/93 W 0008/93 W 0009/93 W 0001/94 W 0003/94 W 0001/95 W 0005/95 W 0006/95 W 0001/96 W 0002/96 W 0004/96 W 0007/96 W 0001/97 W 0006/97 W 0008/97 W 0004/98 W 0006/98 W 0003/99 W 0005/99 W 0009/99 W 0010/99 W 0011/99 W 0014/99 W 0015/99 W 0016/99 W 0001/00 W 0009/00 W 0011/00 W 0012/00 W 0014/00 W 0015/00 W 0017/00 W 0018/00 W 0023/00 W 0001/01 W 0011/01 W 0012/01 W 0016/01 W 0018/01 W 0020/01 W 0021/01 W 0022/01 W 0023/01 W 0024/01 W 0004/02 W 0005/02 W 0006/02 W 0011/02 W 0019/02 W 0020/02 W 0002/03 W 0004/03 W 0005/03 W 0006/03 W 0009/03 W 0010/03 W 0011/03 W 0012/03 W 0014/03 W 0016/03 W 0017/03 W 0020/03 W 0021/03 W 0029/03 W 0002/04 W 0003/04 W 0004/04 W 0006/04 W 0010/04 W 0018/04 W 0023/04 W 0025/04 W 0026/04 W 0028/04 W 0029/04 W 0035/04 W 0008/05 W 0009/05 W 0013/05 W 0020/05 W 0022/05 W 0023/05 W 0024/05 W 0026/05 W 0002/06 W 0003/06 W 0005/06 W 0007/06 W 0011/06 W 0013/06 W 0018/06 W 0020/06 W 0021/06 W 0022/06 W 0023/06 W 0001/07 W 0005/07 W 0006/07 W 0010/07 W 0013/07 W 0018/07 W 0026/07 W 0037/07 W 0038/07 W 0013/08 W 0030/08 W 0034/08 W 0036/08 W 0039/08 W 0041/08 W 0002/09 W 0003/09 W 0004/09 W 0007/09 W 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.