9.3.6 Incomplete search
In T 547/14, no search had been carried out because the subject-matter of the application had not been considered technical, yet a conclusive examination was not possible without a search. Since the primary object of appeal proceedings was to review the decision of the department of first instance (Art. 12(2) RPBA 2020) but the invention had not yet been searched on the basis of the features since found to be technical, and novelty and inventive step had not been examined either, special reasons presented themselves in this case to remit the matter to the department of first instance for a search and further examination, as per the appellant's request.
In T 943/16 it was not clear whether the features considered non-technical by the examining division had been searched. Since the only document cited in the search report was less relevant than the prior art cited in the application, there was good reason to doubt that the search was complete. Under these circumstances, the board was not in a position to assess inventive step.
In T 1749/14 the board was not sure whether the features found in the contested decision to be non-technical or not to contribute to inventive step had been systematically searched, especially since the European search opinion was based on the approach taken in the contested decision. Only the examining division could therefore judge whether the supplementary European search had covered those features of the independent claims which the board considered to provide a technical contribution, or whether a further search was necessary.