G 0001/89 (Polysuccinate esters) du 02.05.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence: ECLI:EP:BA:1990:G000189.19900502
Date de la décision: 2 mai 1990
Numéro de l'affaire: G 0001/89
Requête en révision de: -
Numéro de la demande: -
Classe de la CIB: C10M 145/22
Langue de la procédure: Anglais
Distribution: Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement: Décision en anglais
Versions JO: Allemand
Anglais
Français
Autres décisions pour cet affaire: -
Résumés pour cette décision: -
Titre de la demande: -
Nom du demandeur: non publié
Nom de l'opposant: -
Chambre: -
Sommaire: 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.
Dispositions juridiques pertinentes: 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
Mots-clés: Competence of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in protest cases under PCT
Non-unity a posteriori
Exergue: -
Affaires citées: W 0003/88 W 0044/88
Affaires citantes: 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.