c) Statement indicating the subject-matter to be searched not sufficient to overcome the deficiency noted under Rule 63(1) EPC 

In T 1653/12 the board pointed out that the applicant's statement did not provide a basis for the search examiner to perform a meaningful search. The particular wording used therein ("and/or") left it entirely open which of the two alternatives claimed should be searched. Hence, it was plausible that a meaningful search could not be made.

In T 736/14 the board noted that the EPC contained no explicit provisions on how to proceed if an applicant whose application was non-unitary responded unclearly or in a misleading way to an invitation from the examining division to specify which searched invention it wished to prosecute further. The board held that in such a situation it could not automatically be assumed that the applicant selected the invention covered by the main request for examination. Rather, the examining division had to clarify, e.g. via a further communication, which of the searched inventions the applicant actually wanted it to examine.