European Patent Office

W 0006/90 (Single general concept) du 19.12.1990

Identifiant européen de la jurisprudence
ECLI:EP:BA:1990:W000690.19901219
Date de la décision
19 décembre 1990
Numéro de l'affaire
W 0006/90
En ligne le
28 décembre 1990
Requête en révision de
-
Numéro de la demande
PCT/EP1989/01054
Classe de la CIB
A61F 2/46A61F 2/36
Langue de la procédure
Allemand
Distribution
Publiées au Journal officiel de l'OEB (A)
Téléchargement
-
Autres décisions pour cet affaire
-
Résumés pour cette décision
-
Titre de la demande
-
Nom du demandeur
Draenert
Nom de l'opposant
-
Chambre
3.2.02
Sommaire

1. A single general concept within the meaning of Rule 13.1 PCT manifests itself in features common to different teachings expounded individually in the same application. It must, however, be borne in mind that such a teaching encompasses not only the immediate subject-matter representing the solution to the problem as defined in the relevant claim but also its technical consequences which are expressed as effects (see point 3.2 paragraph 2 of the Reasons for the Decision).

2. A single general concept may therefore be said to be present only if a partial identity exists among the teachings in an application deriving from the structural features of the subject- matters claimed and/or the outcome or results associated with those subject-matters (see point 3.2 paragraph 3 of the Reasons for the Decision).

3. For the purposes of unity of invention, Rule 13.1 PCT also stipulates that the single general concept must be inventive. Even with a given single general concept there is lack of unity if the concept has no inventive character. Before issuing an invitation to pay an additional search fee on the basis of lack of unity, the search examiner must accordingly demonstrate that, given the general knowledge of the person skilled in the art ("a priori") or the state of the art - as revealed by the search - relating to the subject-matter first defined in the claims ("a posteriori"), the substance of the single general concept can evidently contribute nothing to the inventive step (see point 3.3 paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Reasons for the Decision).

Mots-clés
A priori absence of unity
Single general concept not inventive
Exergue
-
Affaires citées
-

ORDER

For these reasons it is decided that: The protest is dismissed. The additional search fee shall not be reimbursed.