1. Assessment of and reasoning for unity of invention 

Given the harmonisation of the definitions concerning unity of invention in Rule 13.1 and 13.2 PCT compared with Art. 82 EPC and Rule 44(1) EPC respectively, the formal criteria for unity in the EPC and the PCT systems are the same. Hence, search and substantive examination follow the same principles in both the European and PCT procedures as far as the reasoning for unity of invention is concerned.

As a consequence, the parts relating to the assessment of unity of invention and its reasoning inof EPC Guidelines F‑V, 1 to EPC Guidelines F‑V, 3 and all their subsections apply mutatis mutandis to the PCT procedure, with the exception of those passages in EPC Guidelines F‑V, 2.1 and EPC Guidelines F‑V, 3.2.1 relating to Rule 43(2) EPC. Indeed, Rule 43(2) EPC, which concerns multiple independent claims in the same category, This is because Rule 43(2) EPC has no equivalent in the PCT. The sections of EPC Guidelines F‑V dealing with Rule 43(2) EPC therefore do not apply for the purposes of the PCT. In, which also means that, in the PCT procedure, multiple independent claims in the same category need to be considered under the Art. 6 conciseness requirement (see F‑IV, 3.2 and EPC Guidelines F‑IV, 3.2).

Intermediate documents cited under Rule 33.1(c) (see B‑X, 9.2.4) are considered in the same way as documents under Art. 54(3) EPC (see EPC Guidelines F‑V, 3.1) and cannot be used for a non-unity objection.

This is also the case for novelty-destroying documents cited under Rule 33.1(a) as accidental anticipation within the meaning of decisions G 1/03 and G 1/16 of the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (see EPC Guidelines F‑V, 3.1.2).