E

PCT/GL/ISPE/6
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
DATE: June 6, 2017

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

PCT INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES

(Guidelines for the Processing by International Searching and

Preliminary Examining Authorities of International Applications
Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty)

as in force from July 1, 2017

1. This document contains the text, as in force from July 1, 2017 of the PCT International
Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines, established by the International Bureau of
WIPO after consultation with the International Searching and Preliminary Examining
Authorities under the PCT.

2. The Guidelines replace the PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination
Guidelines (PCT/GL/ISPE/5), as in force from December 15, 2016.
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PCT INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES
(as in force from July 1, 2017)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Paragraphs
Chapter 1
Introduction 1.01 – 1.15
Purpose and Status of These Guidelines 1.01 – 1.04
Arrangement and Terminology of These Guidelines 1.05 – 1.08
Overview of International Application Process 1.09 – 1.11
The International Phase 1.10 – 1.11
The National (or Regional) Phase 1.12
The International Authorities 1.13 – 1.15
Flowchart of Typical International Application Processing
Chapter 2
Overview of the International Search Stage 2.01 – 2.22
Objectives 2.01 – 2.04
Preliminary Matters 2.05 – 2.09
Receipt of Search Copy from Receiving Office 2.05 – 2.07
Acknowledgement and Allocation by the International
Searching Authority 2.08 – 2.09
The International Search Process 2.10 – 2.12
Time Limit for Establishing International Search Report 2.13
Transmittal of the International Search Report, Written Opinion, etc. 2.14
Options Open to the Applicant 2.15
Further Processing of the International Search Report
and Written Opinion 2.16
Confidential Treatment 2.16
Publication of the Search Report and Making Available of the
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority 2.17 – 2.18
International Preliminary Report on Patentability
(Chapter 1 of the PCT) (When no Demand Is Filed 2.18
Copies of Documents Cited in Search Report 2.19
Supplementary International Searches 2.20 – 2.21
International-Type Searches 2.22
Chapter 3
Overview of the International Preliminary Examination Stage 3.01 – 3.30
Introduction 3.01 – 3.06
Preliminary Matters 3.07 – 3.15
Filing of Demand 3.07 – 3.08
Checking of Demand and Notification of Receipt 3.09 – 3.12
Commencement of International Preliminary Examination 3.13 – 3.15
The International Preliminary Examination Process 3.16 – 3.22
Basis of the Written Opinion or International Preliminary
Examination Report 3.20 – 3.21

Page 2
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Further Consideration 3.22

Nature of the International Preliminary Examination Report 3.23
Time Limit for Establishing the International Preliminary
Examination Report 3.24
Transmittal of the International Preliminary Examination Report 3.25
Further Processing of the International Preliminary
Examination Report 3.26 – 3.29
Confidential Treatment 3.26
Making Available of the International Preliminary Examination Report 3.27
Transmission of the International Preliminary Examination Report
to Elected Offices 3.28
Translation of International Preliminary Examination Report 3.29
Copies of Documents Cited in International Preliminary Examination Report 3.30

PART II
THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION
Chapter 4
Content of the International Application (Other Than the Claims) 4.01 – 4.32
General 4.01
Description 4.02 – 4.27
Technical Field 4.04
Background Art 4.05
Disclosure of Invention 4.06 – 4.07
Brief Description of Drawings 4.08 – 4.09
Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention 4.10
Structure and Function 4.11
Sufficiency 4.12 – 4.13
Industrial Applicability 4.14
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings 4.15
Deposit of Biological Material 4.16 - 4.18
References to Deposited Microorganisms or Other Biological
Material as Part of the Description 4.19
Requirements as to the Language of Sheets Containing References
to Deposited Microorganisms or Other Biological Material 4.20
General 4.21 – 4.27
Drawings 4.28
Expressions, Etc., Not to Be Used 4.29 – 4.32
Appendix to Chapter 4
Background Art
Chapter 5
Claims 5.01 – 5.58
General 5.01 – 5.03
Form and Content of Claims 5.04 – 5.11
Kinds of Claim 5.12 – 5.19
Categories 5.12 – 5.14
Independent and Dependent Claims 5.15 – 5.19
Interpretation of Claims 5.20 – 5.28
“Use” Claims 5.21
Preamble 5.22 – 5.23
Open and Closed Claims 5.24
“Means-Plus-Function” Claims 5.25
“Product-by-Process” Claims 5.26 – 5.27
Product and Apparatus Limitations in Process Claims 5.28
Inconsistency Between Claims and Description 5.29 – 5.30

Page 3
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Clarity 5.31 – 5.41

Clarity of Relative Terms 5.34 – 5.38
Clarity of Other Terms 5.39 – 5.41
Conciseness, Number of Claims 5.42
Support in Description 5.43 – 5.44
Clear and Complete Disclosure of Claimed Invention 5.45 – 5.58
Sufficiency Commensurate with the Claims 5.52 – 5.53
Relationship of Claims to Disclosure 5.54 – 5.58
Appendix to Chapter 5
Multiple Dependent Claims
Interpretation of Claims
Use Claims
Product by Process Claims
Conciseness
Chapter 6
Priority 6.01 – 6.17
The Right to Priority 6.01 – 6.05
Determining Priority Dates 6.06 – 6.10
Claiming Priority 6.11 – 6.17
Chapter 7
Classification of International Applications 7.01 – 7.08
Definition 7.01
Definitive Classification of the International Application 7.02 – 7.04
Multiple Classifications 7.03
Classification of Disclosure as Filed 7.04
Amended Classification in the Case of Later Published
International Search Report 7.05
Classification When Scope Is Obscure 7.06
Lack of Unity of Invention 7.07
Classification of International Applications Excluded
from International Search 7.08
Chapter 8
Rule 91 – Obvious Mistakes in Documents 8.01 – 8.24
Mistakes that Cannot be Rectified Under Rule 91 8.08 – 8.10
Missing Elements or Sheets 8.09
Correction of Priority Claims 8.10
Transmittal to Another Authority of a Request for Rectification 8.11 – 8.12
Invitation to the Applicant to Request Rectification 8.13
Submission and Processing of a Request for Rectification 8.14 – 8.17
Authorization and Effect of Rectifications 8.18 – 8.23
Effective Date of Rectification 8.24

PART III
EXAMINER CONSIDERATIONS COMMON TO BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING
AUTHORITY AND THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING AUTHORITY
Chapter 9
Exclusions from, and Limitations of, International Search and
International Preliminary Examination 9.01 – 9.42
Introduction 9.01
Excluded Subject Matter 9.02 – 9.15
Scientific and Mathematical Theories 9.05

Page 4
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Plant or Animal Varieties or Essentially Biological Processes for

the Production of Plants and Animals, Other Than
Microbiological Processes 9.06
Schemes, Rules or Methods of Doing Business, Performing
Purely Mental Acts or Playing Games 9.07
Methods for Treatment of the Human or Animal Body
by Surgery or Therapy; Diagnostic Methods Practiced on
the Human or Animal Body 9.08 – 9.10
Mere Presentations of Information 9.11 – 9.14
Computer Programs, to the Extent That the Authority is not
Equipped to Carry Out Search or Preliminary
Examination on Such Programs 9.15
General Considerations in Assessing the Nature of
the Subject Matter 9.16 – 9.18
Form of Claims 9.16
Excluded Matter in Only Some Claims 9.17
Cases of Doubt 9.18
Extent of Search and Preliminary Examination
in Certain Situations 9.19 – 9.39
Examples Where Search or Preliminary Examination Possible,
with an Indication in the Written Opinion 9.20 – 9.25
Examples of Exceptional Situations Where no Search
at All is Possible for All or Some of the Claims 9.26 – 9.30
Non-Prior-Art Issues 9.31 – 9.32
Industrial Applicability 9.33
Informal Clarification 9.34 – 9.35
Unclear Claims 9.36 – 9.37
Perpetual Motion 9.38
Sequence Listings 9.39
Declaration of Non-Establishment of International Search Report 9.40
Multiple Dependent Claims 9.41 – 9.41B
Supplementary International Search 9.42
Appendix to Chapter 9
Excluded Subject Matter Regarding Schemes, Rules or Methods of Doing
Business, Performing Purely Mental Acts or Playing Games
Excluded Subject Matter Pertaining to Programs for Computers
Chapter 10
Unity of Invention 10.01 – 10.88
Determination of Unity of Invention 10.01 – 10.10
Illustrations of Particular Situations 10.11 – 10.19
Combinations of Different Categories of Claims 10.12 – 10.16
“Markush Practice” 10.17
Intermediate and Final Products 10.18 – 10.19
Examples Concerning Unity of Invention 10.20 – 10.59
Claims in Different Categories 10.21 – 10.27
Claims in the Same Category 10.28 – 10.37
Markush Practice 10.38 – 10.45
Intermediate/Final Product 10.46 – 10.51
Biotechnological Inventions 10.52 – 10.59
Process at the International Search Stage 10.60 – 10.70
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees 10.60 – 10.63
Search of Additional Inventions Without Payment of Fees 10.64 – 10.65
Protest Procedure 10.66 – 10.70
Process at the International Preliminary Examination Stage 10.71 – 10.82

Page 5
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Protest Procedure 10.78 – 10.82

Process at the Supplementary International Search Stage 10.83 – 10.88
Review of Opinion 10.87 – 10.88
Chapter 11
Prior Art 11.01 – 11.26
Prior Art Generally 11.01
Date of Disclosure 11.02 – 11.05
Relevant Date for International Search Report Purposes 11.03
Relevant Date for Written Opinion and International
Preliminary Examination Purposes 11.04 – 11.05
Documents Casting Doubt on Priority Claim Made in
the International Application 11.06
Documents Not Within the Prior Art Which May
Nevertheless Be Relevant 11.07 – 11.11
Later Published Patent Applications (for Purposes of the
International Search Report) 11.07
Later Published Patent Applications (for Purposes of
International Preliminary Examination) 11.08 – 11.09
Copending Applications, Including Those Filed on the Same Date 11.10
Documents Relevant to Understanding the Invention 11.11
Form of Disclosure 11.12 – 11.22
Availability of Written Disclosures to the Public 11.12
Disclosure on the Internet 11.13
Disclosure Made on the Web Sites of Trusted Publishers 11.14 – 11.15
Disclosure Made on Web Sites of Unknown Reliability 11.16 – 11.20
Differences Between Patent and Non-Patent Citations 11.21
Documents Reproducing an Earlier Oral Description 11.22
Difficulty in Establishing Date of a Document 11.23
Relevant Date in Relation to Individual Claims or Parts of Claims 11.24 – 11.26
Chapter 12
Novelty 12.01 – 12.10
Meaning of Novelty 12.01 – 12.02
Considerations in Determining Novelty 12.03 – 12.10
Methodology 12.03
Inherent or Implicit Disclosure 12.04
Interpretation of Claims 12.05
Combining Documents 12.06
Alternatives 12.07
Generic vs. Specific Disclosures 12.08 – 12.09
Ranges 12.10
Appendix to Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Inventive step 13.01 – 13.19
Meaning of Inventive Step 13.01 – 13.02
Considerations in Determining Inventive Step 13.03 – 13.13
What Is “Obvious”? 13.03
Light of Later Knowledge 13.04
Invention as a Whole; Combination of Known or
Obvious Elements 13.05 – 13.07
Assessing the Contribution Against the Prior Art 13.08 – 13.10
The “Person Skilled in the Art” 13.11
Combining Teachings 13.12 – 13.13
Examples 13.14

Page 6
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Other considerations 13.15 – 13.19

Ex Post Facto Analysis 13.15
Technical Value, Long-Felt Needs 13.16 – 13.17
Commercial Success 13.18
Dependent Claims 13.19
Appendix to Chapter 13
Problem-Solution Approach
Examples in which a single document calls into question
the inventive step
Chapter 14
Industrial Applicability 14.01 – 14.06
Meaning of Industrial Applicability 14.01 – 14.03
Methodology 14.04 – 14.06
Appendix to Chapter 14
Utility
Specific, or Particular, Utility
Substantial, or Practical “Real World” Utility
Credible Utility
Industrial Applicability
Special Purpose
Clear and Complete Disclosure
Possibility of Realizing the Special Purpose
Date at Which Requirements Must Be Met

PART IV
THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCH
Chapter 15
The International Search 15.01 – 15.97
Objective of the International Search and Supplementary
International Search 15.01 – 15.07
Non-Written Disclosures 15.05
Geographical Location, Language, Age and Manner of Disclosure 15.06 – 15.07
The Examiner 15.08 – 15.09
Basis of the Search 15.10 – 15.17C
Scope of the International Search 15.18 – 15.20
Orientation and Subject of the International Search 15.21 – 15.28
Analysis of the Claims 15.21 – 15.23
Inventions for Which No Fees Have Been Paid 15.24
Full Coverage 15.25
Speculative Claims 15.26
Dependent Claims 15.27 – 15.28
Search of Particular Claim Types and Features 15.29 – 15.32
Combination of Elements 15.31
Different Categories of Claim 15.32
Cases Where No Meaningful Search Is Possible 15.33 – 15.36
Obvious Mistakes and Expressions, Etc., Not to be Used (Rule 9) 15.34 – 15.36
Information Meeting the Criteria of Rule 48.2(l) 15.36A
Access to the File held by the International Searching Authority 15.36B
Search Strategy 15.37 – 15.42
Preliminary Steps 15.37
Abstract and Title 15.38
Classification 15.39
Publication Prior to Search 15.40

Page 7
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Search Statement 15.41 – 15.42

Field of Search 15.43 – 15.51
Analogous Fields 15.48 – 15.51
Conducting the Search 15.52 – 15.62
Security of Searching Using the Internet 15.56 – 15.59
No Documents Found 15.60
Stopping Search 15.61
Recording the Search 15.62
Evaluating the Prior Art 15.63 – 15.72
Matters of Doubt Regarding Relevant Prior Art 15.64 – 15.65
Excluded Subject Matter 15.66
Selection of Citations and Identifying Most Relevant Portions 15.67 – 15.72
Procedure After Searching 15.73 – 15.75
Preparation of the International Search Report 15.73
Amended International Search Reports 15.74
Receipt of Misdirected Article 19 Amendments 15.75
Supplementary International Search 15.76 – 15.97
Requesting Supplementary International Search 15.78 – 15.79
Receipt of the Request for Supplementary International
Search by the Authority 15.80 – 15.81
Start of Supplementary International Search 15.82 – 15.83
Withdrawal of the Request for Supplementary
International Search 15.84
Basis of the Supplementary International Search 15.85 – 15.86
Claims Excluded From Supplementary International
Search 15.87 – 15.88
Expressions, Etc., Not to Be Used 15.88A
Information Meeting the Criteria of Rule 48.2(l) 15.88B
Access to the File held by the Authority Specified
for Supplementary Search 15.88C
Unity of Invention 15.89 – 15.92
Extent of Search 15.93
Establishment of the Supplementary International
Search Report 15.94 – 15.96
Copies of Documents 15.97
Chapter 16
International Search Report 16.01 – 16.87
General 16.01 – 16.04
Supplementary International Search 16.03
International-Type Search 16.04
Time Limit for Establishing the International Search Report 16.05
Completing the International Search Report 16.06 – 16.07
Matter Not Required by the Form 16.07
Form and Language of the International Search Report 16.08 – 16.13
International Search Report Form 16.08 – 16.10
Language of Search Report 16.11
Sheets Included in the Publication 16.12 – 16.13
Filling Out the Notification of Transmittal of the International
Search Report or the Declaration, and the Written Opinion of the
International Searching Authority (Form PCT/ISA/220) 16.14 – 16.21
Address for Correspondence 16.14
Applicant’s or Agent’s File Reference 16.15
International Application Number 16.16
International Filing Date 16.17
Applicant 16.18

Page 8
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Cases Where No, or Limited, Search Report is Established 16.19 – 16.21

Filling Out the International Search Report (Form PCT/ISA/210) 16.22 – 16.85
Earliest Priority Date 16.22
Total Number of Sheets 16.23
“It Is Also Accompanied by a Copy of Each Prior Art Document
Cited in This Report” Box 16.24
Basis of the Report 16.25
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings and Related Tables 16.26
Reference to Main International Search Report 16.27
Restriction of the Subject of the International Search 16.28 – 16.32
Abstract, Title and Figure 16.33 – 16.51
—Abstract 16.35 – 16.43
—Title 16.44 – 16.47
—Drawings to Be Published 16.48 – 16.51
Classification of Subject Matter 16.52
Fields Searched 16.53
Minimum Documentation Searched 16.54
Documentation Searched Other Than Minimum Documentation 16.55 – 16.57
Electronic Database Consulted 16.58 – 16.61
Previous Search 16.62
Documents Considered to Be Relevant 16.63 – 16.64
Citation Category 16.65 – 16.76
—Particularly relevant documents 16.66 – 16.68
—Documents defining the state of the art not prejudicing
novelty or inventive step 16.69
—Documents which refer to a non-written disclosure 16.70
—Intermediate documents 16.71
—Documents relating to the theory or principle underlying
the invention 16.72
—Potentially conflicting patent documents 16.73
—Documents cited in the application 16.74
—Documents cited for other reasons 16.75
—Non-prejudicial disclosures 16.76
Relationship Between Documents and Claims 16.77
Citation of the Documents 16.78 – 16.82
Finalization of the Report 16.83 – 16.85
Copies of References Cited in the International Search Report 16.86 – 16.87

PART V
WRITTEN OPINION/INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION REPORT
Chapter 17
Content of Written Opinions and the International
Preliminary Examination Report 17.01 – 17.73
Introduction 17.01 – 17.03
Different Types of Opinion and Report 17.04 – 17.08
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority 17.04 – 17.05
Written Opinion(s) of the International Preliminary
Examining Authority 17.06 – 17.07
The International Preliminary Examination Report 17.08
Content of the Opinion or Report 17.09 – 17.56
Overview of Content 17.09
Form of Opinion or Report 17.10
Data 17.11 – 17.12
Box No. I: Basis of the Written Opinion 17.13 – 17.27
—Language Considerations 17.15

Page 9
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

—Replacement Sheets Deemed to Be Part of the

Application as Originally Filed 17.16
—Examination on Basis of Amended International
Application 17.17 – 17.20
—Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings 17.21
—Amendments Resulting in Gaps in Numbering 17.22
—Amendments Going Beyond Original Disclosure 17.23 – 17.24
—Top-up Searches 17.25
—Amendments Not Accompanied by a Letter to Indicate
Their Basis in the Application as Filed 17.26
—Rectification of Obvious Mistakes 17.27
Box No. II: Priority 17.28 – 17.31
Box No. III: Non-Establishment of Opinion with Regard to
Novelty, Inventive Step and Industrial Applicability 17.32 – 17.37
—Subject Matter Excluded Under Rule 67.1 17.33
—Clarity or Support 17.34 – 17.35
—No International Search Made for Some or All Claims 17.36
—Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings 17.37
Box No. IV: Lack of Unity of Invention 17.38 – 17.41
—Additional Fees Paid Under Protest 17.41
Box No. V: Reasoned Statement Under Rule 66.2(a)(ii)
with Regard to Novelty, Inventive Step or Industrial Applicability;
Citations and Explanations Supporting Such Statement 17.42 – 17.44
Box No. VI: Certain Documents Cited 17.45 – 17.48
Box No. VII: Certain Defects in the International Application 17.49
Box No. VIII: Certain Observations on the International Application 17.50 – 17.55
—Finalization of the Report 17.51
—Language of the Written Opinion and the International
Preliminary Examination Report 17.52
—Form of Objection 17.53 – 17.54
—Ensuring Report Is of Maximal Use for Later Stages 17.55
Invitation to Correct or Amend 17.56 – 17.58
Cases Where Partial Written Opinion or No Written Opinion
to Be Established 17.59 – 17.63
Excluded Subject Matter 17.60
Lack of Unity of Invention 17.61 – 17.65
—Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority 17.61 – 17.62
—Written Opinion of the International Preliminary Examining
Authority or the International Preliminary Examination Report 17.63 – 17.65
Dealing with Major Objections First 17.66
Other Considerations 17.67 – 17.73
Citation of Certain Documents in the International Search Report 17.67
Additional Documents Taken Into Consideration in Certain Cases 17.68 – 17.69
Inconsistencies Between Description and Claims 17.70
Recommending Amendments 17.71
Consideration of Responses to the Written Opinion 17.72 – 17.73

PART VI
THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION STAGE (OTHER THAN THE
INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORT)
Chapter 18
Preliminary Procedure on Receipt of the Demand 18.01 – 18.18
Use of Facsimile Machine, Telegraph, Teleprinter, Etc. 18.01
Basis for International Preliminary Examination 18.02 – 18.09
Statement Concerning Amendments 18.03 – 18.06

Page 10
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Language for the Purposes of International

Preliminary Examination 18.07 – 18.09
Documents, Etc., for the International Preliminary
Examining Authority 18.10 – 18.18
Language of the International Application and of the Demand 18.14 – 18.15
Priority Document and Translation Thereof 18.16
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings 18.17 – 18.18
Chapter 19
Examination Procedure Before The International
Preliminary Examining Authority 19.01 – 19.52
General 19.01 – 19.05
Start of, and Time Limit for, International
Preliminary Examination 19.06 – 19.12
Start of Examination 19.07 – 19.09
Time Limit for Completing Examination 19.10 – 19.12
First Stage of International Preliminary Examination 19.13 – 19.25
General 19.13 – 19.14
Top-up Searches 19.15 – 19.21
Cases Where No Written Opinion Is Required 19.22 – 19.23
Cases Where a Further Written Opinion May Be Issued 19.24
Claims for Which No International Search Report Has
Been Established 19.25
Further Stage of International Preliminary Examination 19.26 – 19.33
Correction of International Preliminary Examination Report 19.34 – 19.35
Matters Applicable Generally to Various Stages of International
Preliminary Examination 19.36 – 19.46
Making Amendments: General Considerations 19.36
Rectification of Obvious Mistakes 19.37 – 19.40
Informal Communication with the Applicant 19.41 – 19.46
Establishment of the International Preliminary Examination Report 19.47 – 19.48
General 19.47 – 19.48
Determination of Time Limits 19.49 – 19.51
Failure of Applicant to Respond Within a Prescribed Time Limit 19.51
Withdrawal of the Demand or All Elections 19.52
Chapter 20
Amendments 20.01 – 20.22
Amendment Prior to the Start of International
Preliminary Examination 20.01 – 20.03
Amendment of the Claims Under Article 19 20.01
Amendment Under Article 34 20.02 – 20.03
Making Amendments: General Considerations 20.04 – 20.08
Appraisal of Amendments 20.09
Additional Subject Matter 20.10 – 20.19
Lack of Support 20.20 – 20.21
Amendments to Translated Applications 20.22
Appendix to Chapter 20
New Matter

Page 11
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART VII
QUALITY
Chapter 21
Common Quality Framework for
International Search and Preliminary Examination 21.01 – 21.28
Introduction 21.01 – 21.03
1. Leadership and Policy 21.04 – 21.09
2. Resources 21.10
– Sufficient Human Resources
– Sufficient Material Resources
– Sufficient Training Resources
– Oversight Over Is Resources
3. Management of Administrative Workload 21.11
4. Quality Assurance 21.12
5. Communication 21.13 – 21.16
Inter-Authority Communication 21.13 – 21.15
Communication and Guidance to Users 21.15
Communication with WIPO and Designated
and Elected Offices 21.16
6. Documentation 21.17 – 21.20
7. Search Process Documentation 21.21
8. Internal Review 21.22– 21.25
9. Arrangements for Authorities to
Report to MIA 21.26 – 21.27
10. Future developments 21.28

PART VIII
CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Chapter 22
Clerical and Administrative Procedures 22.01 – 22.59
Receipt of the Demand 22.01
Determination of Competent International Preliminary
Examining Authority and Marking of the Demand 22.02 – 22.05
Identification of the International Application 22.06
Applicant’s Entitlement to File a Demand 22.07 – 22.10
Change in the Applicant 22.10
Election of States 22.11
Check of Particulars Affecting the Date of Receipt 22.12 – 22.13
Checking Whether Demand Is Timely Filed 22.14 – 22.15
Establishing the International Preliminary
Examining Authority File 22.16 – 22.19
Transmittal of the Demand to the International Bureau 22.20 – 22.23
Certain Defects in the Demand 22.24 – 22.26
Language 22.27
Signature 22.28 – 22.32
Indications Concerning the Applicant 22.33 – 22.34
Indications Concerning the Agent 22.35 – 22.36
Invitation to Correct Defects in the Demand 22.37 – 22.41
Payment and Refund of Fees 22.42 – 22.48
Transfer of Handling Fees to the International Bureau 22.49
Use of Facsimile Machine, Telegraph, Teleprinter, Etc. 22.50 – 22.51
Irregularities in the Mail Service 22.52
Excuse of Delay in Meeting Time Limits 22.52A – 22.52B
Computation of Time Limits 22.53

Page 12
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Amendments Under Article 19 22.54

Response to the Written Opinion 22.55 – 22.57
Transmittal of the International Preliminary Examination Report 22.58
Withdrawal of the Demand or All Elections 22.59

Page 13
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART I
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

Chapter 1
Introduction

Purpose and Status of These Guidelines

1.01 These Guidelines give instructions as to the practice to be followed by Authorities
during the international search and examination procedures.
1.02 The Guidelines are addressed primarily to the examiners in the various
International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities but it is hoped that they will
also be of assistance to applicants and patent practitioners. They also apply, where
appropriate, to international-type searches (see paragraph 2.22). Moreover, the Guidelines
may be useful to the patent Offices of the designated and elected States in the national
phase in the searching and examination of the international application and in better
understanding the international search and examination reports. Although the Guidelines
deal with international applications, they may be used mutatis mutandis by national Offices in
dealing with national applications if the national law so permits; also they may be used in
revising national laws with the purpose of unification of current practices in patent Offices of
various countries. They, however, do not generally cover the actions of the receiving Office,
even though this might in some cases be the same Office as the International Searching
Authority and/or the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Articles 16(3)(b), 32, 33
1.03 These Guidelines are common rules of international search and examination that
provide instructions regarding international search and examination and assist in the
application of the provisions of the PCT, PCT Regulations and PCT Administrative
Instructions relating to international search and examination. They are intended to cover
typical occurrences. They should therefore be considered only as general directives;
examiners will have to go beyond the instructions in exceptional cases. Nevertheless,
applicants can expect the International Searching and Examining Authorities to act, as a
general rule, in accordance with the Guidelines until such time as they are revised. In
addition, at various points throughout these Guidelines, the examiner is directed to interpret a
claim in a particular fashion. This has been done to enable the designated and/or elected
Offices to understand the examiner’s conclusion as to novelty, inventive step
(non-obviousness) and industrial application, and in no way binds the designated and/or
elected Offices to adopt a similar interpretation. The Guidelines set forth standards for
quality for the International Searching Authorities and the International Preliminary Examining
Authorities to follow so as to minimize differences in the results of the search and
examination process among the various Authorities.
1.04 The above criteria merely serve the purpose of international search and
preliminary examination, and any Contracting State may apply additional or different criteria
for the purpose of deciding whether, in that State, the claimed invention is patentable. It
should be noted also that the Guidelines do not have the binding authority of a legal text.
These Guidelines have been designed to assist International Searching and Examining
Authorities in establishing international search and examination reports, in accordance with
PCT Articles 17 and 18, written opinions in accordance with PCT Article 34 and Rule 43bis
and international preliminary examination reports in accordance with PCT Article 35. For the
ultimate authority on questions concerning international search and examination, it is
necessary to refer to the PCT Articles themselves, interpreted, where necessary, by
reference to the Minutes of the Washington Diplomatic Conference and interpretations given
by the PCT Assembly. Any failure of an International Searching or Examining Authority to
follow these Guidelines would not of itself constitute a basis for review of the action of the

Page 14
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Authority except where such review is provided for under the applicable national law and
practice.
Arrangement and Terminology of These Guidelines
1.05 These Guidelines initially set out the framework, which is to be followed at the
international search stage and the international preliminary examination stage and then go
on to set out a number of steps and concepts in greater detail. The Guidelines are divided
into eight parts. Part I provides a brief overview of the procedures at the international search
stage and international preliminary examination stage. Part II provides details of the
international application. Part III provides details of considerations that the examiner needs
to keep in mind during both the international search stage and the international preliminary
examination stage. Part IV provides details on the international search. Part V contains
information on the content of written opinions and the international preliminary examination
report. Part VI discusses procedures during the international preliminary examination.
Part VII provides for a common quality framework. Part VIII discusses clerical and
administrative procedures. Some of the chapters in the various parts are relevant to only
one stage or the other. However, with a few exceptions which are explained in the text,
where examiners in the International Searching Authority and the International Preliminary
Examining Authority consider any particular issue, this should be done to the same
standards and most chapters are relevant to the work of both stages.
1.06 Unless qualified, references in the Guidelines to “the Treaty” are to the PCT, to
“Articles” are to those of the Treaty, to “Rules” to those of the Regulations under the PCT, to
“Sections” to those of the Administrative Instructions under the PCT, and to “parts,”
“chapters” and “paragraphs” to those of these Guidelines. References to Parts and Annexes
of the Administrative Instructions under the PCT bear the prefix “AI”.
1.07 “International Authority” or “Authority”, unless qualified, mean International
Searching Authority and/or International Preliminary Examining Authority, as the case
requires. The term “examiner”, unless qualified, is used in the Guidelines to refer to the
examiner working in the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the International
Searching Authority or the Authority specified for supplementary search. “Search” and
“examination”, unless qualified, mean international search and international preliminary
examination according to the Treaty and Regulations.
1.08 References to a “national” Office or law, include also regional systems where
several States have entrusted to an intergovernmental authority the task of granting regional
patents.
Overview of International Application Process
1.09 The procedure through which an international patent application under the Patent
Cooperation Treaty proceeds from the filing of the application to the granting of a patent (or
the refusal thereof) comprises two main stages, commonly referred to as the “international
phase” and the “national phase” (or “regional phase” when an international application comes
before a regional body rather than a national one). The following paragraphs 1.10, and 1.11,
and the flowchart of typical international application processing that has been provided at the
end of this chapter, provide a brief overview of the international phase, with a complete
explanation provided in parts II to VIII of the Guidelines.
The International Phase
Articles 22, 23
1.10 The international phase begins when the international application is filed and,
provided that the international application is not withdrawn, includes various formalities
checks, an international search, preparation of a written opinion, publication of the
application and, optionally, an international preliminary examination. During this phase, no
national or regional Office may process or examine the application except at the specific
request of the applicant.

Page 15
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

1.11 The international phase in turn includes a number of groups of actions which are
distinct in nature, though they may in practice overlap slightly in timing:
(a) Filing of the international application with an appropriate receiving Office: this
includes a “request” (a petition that the international application be processed according to
the Treaty, together with certain data concerning matters such as the applicant, inventor, any
agent and formal details about the application, such as the title and any priority claims), a
description, one or more claims, one or more drawings (where required) and an abstract;
(b) Certain procedural checks are carried out, an international filing date is accorded
and copies of the application are sent to the International Bureau (the record copy) and the
International Searching Authority (the search copy);
(c) An international search by the International Searching Authority: this includes a
search for earlier disclosures relevant to the novelty and inventive step of the claimed
invention and the establishment of an international search report and a written opinion on
novelty, inventive step and industrial application, normally at 16 months from the priority
date, as detailed later in this document. (See Chapter 2 and Parts IV and V);
(d) International publication of the international application, the international search
report, and Article 19 amendments (if any) by the International Bureau at 18 months from the
priority date; the written opinion of the International Searching Authority (and any informal
comments filed by the applicant) will be made available to the public at the same time;
(e) Optionally, at the request of the applicant, a supplementary international search by
a participating Authority other than the one which conducted the main international search, in
order to extend the overall scope of the search (for example, to better cover prior art in
languages not covered by the main Authority). Supplementary international searches may
be requested from more than one participating Authority. For a more detailed outline of the
supplementary international search procedure, see Chapter 15 at paragraphs 15.75 to 15.97
and also paragraphs 9.42 and 16.03.
(f) Optionally, at the request of the applicant by filing a “demand” (Chapter II of the
PCT), an international preliminary examination conducted by the International Preliminary
Examining Authority, in which the examiner considers further the issues of novelty, inventive
step and industrial application, taking into account any comments or amendments under
Article 19 or 34 from the applicant, as detailed later in this document; this concludes with the
establishment of an international preliminary examination report, which is entitled
“international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation
Treaty)” (see Chapter 17).
(g) Issuance of an “international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter I of the
Patent Cooperation Treaty)” by the International Bureau on behalf of the International
Searching Authority if the applicant does not file a demand requesting examination of the
international application in response to the written opinion as established by the International
Searching Authority; such an international preliminary report on patentability has the same
content as the written opinion established by the International Searching Authority.
(h) Distribution by the International Bureau of documents to the designated Offices or
elected Offices, including copies of the application, any amendments which have been filed,
any supplementary international search reports(s), and an international preliminary report on
patentability, comprising either the contents of the written opinion by the International
Searching Authority or, where established, the international preliminary examination report.
The National (or Regional) Phase
1.12 After 30 months from the priority date of the application (20 months in certain
States due to transitional provisions; States also have the option of specifying a later date
applicable for applications before their Office), the application may begin its national (or
regional) phase in each designated Office (if international preliminary examination has not

Page 16
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

been demanded and Chapter I of the PCT applies) or elected Office (if international
preliminary examination has been demanded and Chapter II of the PCT applies). This is the
procedure which actually leads to the grant, or refusal, of a patent according to the relevant
national law or regional arrangement. While the national and regional Offices may not make
further requirements beyond those of the Treaty and Regulations in respect of matters of
form and contents, they are not bound by the Treaty to follow the results of any international
search or examination which has been performed when the application is examined during
the national or regional phase.
The International Authorities
Articles 16, 32; Rules 35, 36, 59, 63
1.13 The International Searching Authorities and International Preliminary Examining
Authorities are national Offices or intergovernmental organizations entrusted with a number
of tasks under the Treaty, especially the establishment of international search and
preliminary examination reports. Authorities are appointed by the Assembly of the PCT
Union. The requirements for appointment are such that Authorities must necessarily be
appointed in both capacities (that is, to undertake both search and preliminary examination).
Details about the functions of Authorities and the requirements of particular Authorities are
set out in Annexes D, E and SISA of the PCT Applicant’s Guide. The Authorities meet
together regularly in sessions of the Meeting of International Authorities under the PCT
(PCT/MIA) (see WIPO’s web site via http://www.wipo.int/pct).
1.14 One or more Authorities may be competent to search or examine a particular
international application. This depends on agreements between the International Authorities
and the International Bureau, together with a decision which has been notified to the
International Bureau by each receiving Office concerning which Authorities are competent to
act in respect of international applications filed with that Office. Where more than one
Authority might be competent to perform the search or examination of any particular
application, the applicant chooses the desired Authority in the request or demand.
International Searching Authorities may each decide whether they wish to offer a
supplementary international search service, which will then normally be available to any
applicant for whom that Authority did not perform the main international search.
1.15 The International Preliminary Examining Authority for any particular application will
usually be the same body as the International Searching Authority, but this is not necessarily
the case. A different Authority may be specifically chosen by the applicant or else,
occasionally, an Authority may be competent to search a particular international application
but not to examine it. Consequently it is particularly important that both the international
search report and the written opinion by the International Searching Authority are produced
to consistent standards, so that they may be used effectively by any other Authority, as well
as by applicants and designated Offices.

Page 17
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Flowchart of Typical International Application Processing

Page 18
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 2
Overview of the International Search Stage

Objectives
2.01 This chapter provides a brief, introductory overview of the international search
stage. A complete discussion of the procedure at the international search stage is provided
in Parts II and IV of the Guidelines.
Article 15(2); Rule 33.1(a)
2.02 The objective of the international search is to discover the prior art which is
relevant for the purpose of determining whether, and if so to what extent, the claimed
invention to which the international application relates is or is not novel and does or does not
involve an inventive step. In some cases the International Searching Authority is not
required to establish a search for some or all of the claimed subject matter, either because
the scope of the claims is too uncertain or the application covers excluded subject matter
(see Chapter 9) or else more than one invention is claimed (see Chapter 10).
Rule 43bis
2.03 At the same time as establishing the international search report, the search
examiner establishes a written opinion The written opinion has the primary objective of
formulating a preliminary and non-binding opinion on the questions of whether the claimed
invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious) and to be
industrially applicable. A secondary objective is to identify whether there appear to be any
defects in the form or contents of the international application, for example with regard to the
clarity of the claims, the description, and the drawings, or whether the claims are fully
supported by the description.
2.04 It is essential that the search and the written opinion are carried out according to
the same criteria which are used during the international preliminary examination. The
search may also report on some material which may not strictly be relevant to novelty and
inventive step, as detailed below in paragraph 2.10.
Preliminary Matters
Receipt of Search Copy from Receiving Office
Rule 23.1
2.05 Provided that the international application has been filed in a language accepted
by the International Searching Authority, the receiving Office sends the search copy of the
application to the International Searching Authority (and the record copy to the International
Bureau) as soon as it has allocated an identification number and performed the relevant
formalities checks under Articles 11 and 14 and the international search fee has been paid.
Rule 12
2.06 Where the language in which the international application is filed is not accepted
by the International Searching Authority that is to carry out the international search, the
applicant must furnish to the receiving Office a translation of the international application into
a language which is all of the following:
(a) language accepted by the International Searching Authority, and
(b) a language of publication, and
(c) a language accepted by the receiving Office under Rule 12.1(a), unless the
international application is filed in a language of publication.
However no such translation is required of the request or any sequence listing part of the
description. Where the applicant is required to furnish such a translation, the international
search will be carried out on the basis of that translation.

Page 19
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 23.1(b)
2.07 Where a translation of the international application is furnished to the receiving
Office under Rule 12.3, a copy of that translation and of the request are together considered
to be the search copy; that search copy is transmitted by the receiving Office to the
International Searching Authority promptly upon receipt from the applicant except where no
search fee has been paid. In the latter case, the search copy is transmitted promptly after
payment of the search fee.
Acknowledgement and Allocation by the International Searching Authority
Rule 25.1
2.08 The International Searching Authority notifies the applicant that the search copy
has been received using Form PCT/ISA/202 and sends a copy of the notification to the
International Bureau and, where this is not the same as the International Searching Authority,
the receiving Office.
2.09 The international search is then assigned as quickly as possible to a search
examiner who is capable of completing the search within the time limit. The preliminary
classification must also be determined as quickly as possible.
The International Search Process
2.10 The role of the International Searching Authority is as follows, the details being
considered in subsequent chapters referred to below:
(a) to determine classification of the case, particularly to determine whether
examiners specializing in other fields need to be consulted to ensure a proper search is
carried out; this classification may need to be reconsidered in the light of fuller consideration,
but a definitive classification must be made by the time that the international application is
published (see Chapter 7);
Article 17(3); Rule 40
(b) to consider whether the application meets the requirement of unity of invention
and, if not, whether the applicant should be invited to pay further search fees relating to the
extra inventions (see Chapter 10);
Rule 39
(c) to consider whether some or all of the subject matter relates to subject matter
which the Authority is not required to search (see Chapter 9);
Rules 4.12, 16.3, 41
(d) to determine whether to use the results of any earlier search, referred to by the
applicant in the request form relating to the application, to establish the international search
report, and to consequently authorize any appropriate refund;
Rule 13ter
(e) to determine whether to invite the applicant to provide a listing if the international
application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences but
does not include a sequence listing in compliance with the standard for sequence listings in
paper or electronic form provided for in the Administrative Instructions (see paragraphs 15.12
and 15.13);
Articles 15, 17(2)
(f) to perform an international search to discover relevant prior art (see Chapter 11)
taking into account that there may be subject matter such that the Authority is not obliged to
search where the subject matter is such that the Authority is not obliged to do so (see
Chapter 9), the description, claims or drawings fail to comply with the prescribed
requirements to such an extent that no meaningful search could be carried out, (see
Chapter 9 and paragraph 15.33) or else the claims relate to several different inventions and
additional search fees, which the Authority has invited the applicant to pay, have not been
paid (see Chapter 10);

Page 20
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rules 37, 38
(g) to consider whether the abstract and title are appropriate and, in certain
circumstances, to draft alternatives (see paragraphs 16.33 to 16.47);
Rule 43
(h) to establish a search report, indicating the results of the search and certain other
information (see Chapter 16), or else make a declaration that a search was either not
required or would not be meaningful (see Chapter 9);
Rule 43bis
(i) to establish a written opinion as to whether the international application appears to
be novel, to involve an inventive step, to be industrially applicable and to comply with other
requirements of the Treaty and Regulations insofar as they are checked by the International
Searching Authority (see Chapter 17).
2.11 Some of the above matters, especially unity of invention, may be the subject of
ongoing consideration, depending on the outcome of the search. Nevertheless it is important
to consider matters at an early stage in view of the limited time available in which to obtain
corrections or additional fees from the applicant.
2.12 In a few situations leading up to the establishment of the international search
report, the International Searching Authority may specifically invite a response, such as
where the international application is considered to lack unity of invention (see Chapter 10) in
which case additional fees may be required to be paid for searching the other invention(s),
either under protest together with a reasoned statement or without a protest. The
International Searching Authority may, also, require a protest fee for the examination of the
protest.
Time Limit for Establishing International Search Report
Rules 42.1, 43bis.1
2.13 The International Searching Authority must establish the international search
report (or a declaration made that the International Searching Authority is not required to
perform a search or cannot perform a meaningful search) and written opinion within:
(i) three months from the date of receipt of the search copy, or
(ii) nine months from the priority date of the application,
whichever time limit expires later.
Transmittal of the International Search Report, Written Opinion, etc.
Rule 44.1
2.14 Once the international search report and written opinion are established, the
International Searching Authority transmits one copy of each to the International Bureau and
one copy to the applicant on the same day.
Options Open to the Applicant
2.15 In general, the applicant has the following options available following the receipt of
the international search report and written opinion of the International Searching Authority:
(a) send (informal) comments on the written opinion of the International Searching
Authority to the International Bureau, who will make these available to the public and to
designated Offices (see paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18, below);
Rule 46
(b) submit to the International Bureau amendments of the claims under Article 19(1)
accompanied by a letter drawing attention to the differences between the claims and
indicating the basis for the amendments in the application as filed, and optionally including a
brief statement explaining the amendments;

Page 21
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 45bis
(c) request one or more supplementary international searches from Authorities which
offer that service, other than the Authority which performed the main international search;
Articles 31, 34(2)(b); Rule 53
(d) request international preliminary examination, including arguments and/or
amendments which will be taken into account by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority;
(e) withdraw the application under Rule 90bis; or
(f) take no further action in the international phase, instead waiting until it is
necessary, or desired, to pursue the application before designated Offices.
Further Processing of the International Search Report and Written Opinion
Confidential Treatment
Article 30; Rule 94.3
2.16 Prior to the international publication of the international application, all matter
pertaining to the application is confidential and may not, without the request or authorization
of the applicant, be accessed by any person or authority, except for the transmissions of
information specifically required by the Treaty and Regulations for the purposes of
processing the application.
If early processing is requested, the designated or elected Office may allow access to any
documents which have been communicated to it to the extent provided by its national law,
provided that the international application has been published.
Publication of the Search Report and Making Available of the Written Opinion of the
International Searching Authority
Article 21(3); Rule 48.2
2.17 The international search report is published with the international application
unless it is not yet available. If delayed, it is published separately as soon as possible
afterwards. The written opinion and any informal comments filed by the applicant will be
made available to the public by the International Bureau at the same time.
International Preliminary Report on Patentability (Chapter I of the PCT) (When no
Demand Is Filed)
Rule 44bis
2.18 If no international preliminary examination report is to be established because the
applicant did not file a demand for preliminary examination, or the demand has been
withdrawn, the International Bureau will prepare a report, entitled “international preliminary
report on patentability (Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty)” having the same
contents as the written opinion. Note that even if the applicant filed any amendments under
Article 19, the amendments will not be taken into consideration in the international
preliminary report on patentability. Also, note that in certain circumstances as set forth in
Rule 44bis.3(a) and (d), the International Bureau may translate the written opinion or report
into English. Any such report and translation is communicated to designated Offices, who
may then allow access to it, after 30 months from the priority date, or earlier if the applicant
has requested early national processing of his application under Article 23(2). The report
together with any translation will also be made available to the public by the International
Bureau after 30 months from the priority date.
Copies of Documents Cited in Search Report
Article 20(3), Rule 44.3
2.19 At any time within seven years of the international filing date of the international
application, either the applicant or any designated Office is entitled to request copies of the
documents cited in the search report to be sent to them by the International Searching

Page 22
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Authority, subject, if required by the Authority, to the payment of costs for preparing and
mailing the copies (the applicant may be sent copies of the citations automatically with the
international search report).
Supplementary International Searches
Rule 45bis
2.20 International Searching Authorities may offer supplementary international searches
as an optional additional service for applicants. Such searches are intended as a
complement to the main international search, recognizing the fact that no search can be
completely exhaustive. A supplementary search may be particularly relevant where the
Authority conducting it has language specialization that is not available in the Authority
conducting the main international search. The applicant can request a supplementary
search from any Authority which offers the service (except the Authority conducting the main
search) at any time before 22 months from the priority date. More than one supplementary
search may be requested from different Authorities offering the service.
2.21 Many of the details of the service provided are decided by the Authority which is to
carry out the supplementary search. The scope of the service is set out in an annex to the
agreement between the International Bureau and the Authority, and details are published in
Annex SISA of the PCT Applicant’s Guide. Features of the supplementary search
procedure, including conditions, limitations and time limits, are discussed in more detail in
paragraphs 15.76 to 15.97 and also in paragraphs 9.42 and 16.03.
International-Type Searches
Article 15(5)
2.22 Under Article 15(5), an International Searching Authority may be entrusted with
carrying out “international-type searches” for national applications. These searches are by
definition similar to international searches, and the same considerations for establishing the
search report will apply. However, only the search itself is carried out; no written opinion is
established for such applications unless there is a specific arrangement between the Offices
involved for such an opinion to be established at the same time.

Page 23
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 3
Overview of the International Preliminary Examination Stage

Introduction
3.01 This chapter provides a brief introductory overview of the international preliminary
examination stage. A complete discussion of the procedure at the international preliminary
examination stage is provided in Parts V and VI of the Guidelines.
Article 31
3.02 International preliminary examination is an optional part of the processing of an
international application, performed if the applicant files a “demand.” It shares the objectives
of, and builds on the process of, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority,
allowing the applicant to respond to the International Preliminary Examining Authority, with
arguments as to why the opinion was incorrect, and/or with amendments to attempt to
overcome objections. The results of the international preliminary examination are recorded
in the international preliminary examination report (entitled “international preliminary report
on patentability (Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation Treaty)”), copies of which are then sent
to the applicant and the International Bureau. The International Bureau communicates the
report to each elected Office (that is, usually, the Offices of all Contracting States).
Article 31(4); Rule 53.7
3.03 Filing of a demand constitutes the “election” of all States which were designated
when the international application was filed, which have not been withdrawn and which are
bound by Chapter II of the Treaty (at the time of writing this included all Contracting States).
Election indicates an intention to use the results of the international preliminary examination
in the relevant States, but it should be remembered that the results of international
preliminary examination are not binding on the States.
3.04 Using international preliminary examination has the practical effect that national
processing starts under much more advantageous conditions both for the applicant and the
national Offices than would be the case without the PCT. The applicant has, thanks to the
written opinion prepared under Chapter I, an earlier and stronger indication of his chances of
obtaining protection. Moreover, amendments made in the international phase in response to
the written opinion may be reflected in the international preliminary examination report and
need not be filed in each elected State. The elected Offices save a considerable amount of
the effort of examination. The exact extent of the saving depends on the national law and
practice.
3.05 The attitude of the examiner is very important. He should always try to be
constructive and helpful. He should bear in mind that, subject to the requirements of the
PCT, the drafting of the description and claims of an international application is the
responsibility of the applicant or his authorized representative.
3.06 All international applications, regardless of their country of origin and the language
in which they are written, should receive equal treatment.
Preliminary Matters
Filing of Demand
Article 31(6); Rule 54bis
3.07 The applicant should file the demand with the competent International Preliminary
Examining Authority before the expiration of the later of the following time limits:
a. three months from the date of transmittal to the applicant of the international
search report or the declaration referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and the written opinion
established under Rule 43bis.1; or
b. 22 months from the priority date of the international application.

Page 24
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

3.08 For transitional purposes, applicants should note that they must file the demand
within 19 months of the priority date if they wish to gain the benefit of a 30-month
international phase for the purposes of certain States which have made reservations with
respect to modifications to Article 22(1), which came into force for most States on
April 1, 2002. The States which notified a reservation in respect of this modification were
published in PCT Gazette No. 08/2002, February 21, 2002. Subsequent withdrawals are
also published in the PCT Gazette. Information may be obtained from the WIPO web site at
www.wipo.int/pct.
Checking of Demand and Notification of Receipt
Rules 54bis, 59, 60, 61
3.09 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks to ensure that it is
competent to act as Authority for that application and that the demand is in the correct form
and language, and was filed within the time limits specified in paragraph 3.07. If the
Authority is not competent, it transmits the demand to the International Bureau; if there are
any defects, the applicant is invited to correct them; if the demand was filed after the
expiration of the period set in paragraph 3.07, it is considered not to have been made, and
the International Preliminary Examining Authority so informs the applicant. If the demand is
in order, the Authority indicates the date of receipt on the demand, transmits a copy to the
International Bureau and notifies the applicant of receipt of the demand. These procedures
are set out in detail in Chapter 18.
Rule 62
3.10 The International Bureau will then send the International Preliminary Examining
Authority:
(a) a copy of the written opinion established by the International Searching Authority,
unless the national Office or intergovernmental organization that acted as International
Searching Authority is also acting as International Preliminary Examining Authority; and
(b) a copy of any amendments filed under Article 19 and any statement explaining the
amendments and any impact that they might have on the description and drawings, unless
the Authority has indicated that it has already received these.
Rule 62bis.1
3.11 If the written opinion of the International Searching Authority was not established in
English or a language accepted by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, that
Authority may request the International Bureau to translate the opinion into English. The
translation is established within two months and copies sent to both to the International
Preliminary Examining Authority and to the applicant, who may make written comments on
the correctness of the translation and send them to the International Bureau and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Article 31(7); Rule 61
3.12 Upon receipt of the demand from the International Preliminary Examining
Authority, the International Bureau also notifies elected Offices of their election and publishes
information on the demand in the Gazette, though this does not occur prior to publication of
the international application.
Commencement of International Preliminary Examination
Rule 69.1
3.13 The International Preliminary Examining Authority normally starts the international
preliminary examination (see Chapter 19) when:
(a) it is in possession of:
(i) the demand;
(ii) the amount due (in full) for the handling fee and the preliminary examination
fee, including, where applicable, the late payment fee under Rule 58bis.2;

Page 25
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(iii) if the applicant is required to furnish a translation under Rule 55.2, that
translation; and
(iv) either the international search report or the declaration by the International
Searching Authority under Article 17(2)(a) that no international search report will be
established, and the written opinion established under Rule 43bis.1;
and
(b) the time limit within which the applicant was permitted to file the demand (see
paragraph 3.07) has expired, or earlier if the applicant has expressly requested an earlier
start.
3.14 The exceptions to the above are as follows:
Rule 69.1(c)
(a) Where the statement concerning amendments contains an indication that
amendments under Article 19 are to be taken into account (Rule 53.9(a)(i)), the International
Preliminary Examining Authority does not start the international preliminary examination
before it has received a copy of the amendments concerned.
Rule 69.1(e)
(b) Where the statement concerning amendments contains an indication that
amendments under Article 34 are submitted with the demand (Rule 53.9(c)) but no such
amendments are, in fact, submitted, the International Preliminary Examining Authority does
not start the international preliminary examination before it has received the amendments or
before the time limit fixed in the invitation referred to in Rule 60.1(g) (see paragraph 18.04)
has expired, whichever occurs first.
Rule 69.1(b), (d)
(c) If the national Office or intergovernmental organization that acts as International
Searching Authority also acts as International Preliminary Examining Authority in respect of
an application, the international preliminary examination may, if that national Office or
intergovernmental organization so wishes, start at the same time as the international search
(subject to the possible need to invite the applicant to provide copies of amendments under
Article 34, as noted in paragraph (b), above), provided that applicant has not indicated (under
Rule 53.9(b)) in the statement of amendments that the examination is to be postponed until
after the expiry of the time limit for filing amendments under Article 19 (such amendments
only being permitted after the international search report has been received).
(d) Where the statement concerning amendments contains such an indication that the
start of the international preliminary examination is to be postponed, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority does not start the international preliminary examination until
whichever of the following occurs first:
(i) it receives a copy of any amendments made under Article 19;
(ii) it receives a notice from the applicant that he does not wish to make
amendments under Article 19; or
(iii) the time limit under Rule 46.1 for filing Article 19 amendments expires.
3.15 As soon as examination is to begin, the international application is sent to an
examiner, who is responsible for establishing the international preliminary examination
report. Where the International Searching Authority which carried out the search and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority are part of the same national Office, the
international preliminary examination should preferably be performed by the examiner who
was responsible for the international search.

Page 26
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

The International Preliminary Examination Process

Rule 66.1ter
3.16 The International Preliminary Examining Authority carries out a top-up search
normally at the start of the international preliminary examination process. The main objective
of the top-up search is to discover relevant documents referred to in Rule 64 that became
available for search after the establishment of the international search report. No top-up
search is carried out if the Authority considers that such a search would serve no useful
purpose (see paragraph 19.15).
Article 34(2)
3.17 The applicant generally has the right to receive at least one written opinion,
essentially directed to the questions of whether the claimed invention is novel, involves an
inventive step (is non-obvious) and is industrially applicable, prior to the report being
established unless the International Preliminary Examining Authority considers that all of the
following criteria are fulfilled:
(i) the invention satisfies the criteria set forth in Article 33(1), that is that it
appears to be novel, involve an inventive step and have industrial application, as defined for
the purposes of the Treaty;
(ii) the international application complies with the requirements of the Treaty and
the Regulations which are checked by the International Preliminary Examining Authority (see
Rule 70.12 and Chapter 17); and
(iii) the Authority does not intend to make other permitted observations.
Article 33(6); Rules 45bis.8(c; Rule 66.1(e); Section 420
3.18 Copies of the international search report and of any supplementary international
search report are transmitted by the International Bureau to the International Preliminary
Examining Authority. All documents cited in the international search report and, where
appropriate, the supplementary international search report are taken into consideration
during the international preliminary examination, together with any other documents
considered to be relevant. The International Preliminary Examining Authority is not obliged
to draw up a written opinion on any claims for which an international search report has not
been established. A supplementary search report need not be taken into account by the
Authority for the purposes of a written opinion or the international preliminary examination
report if the supplementary search report is received by the Authority after it has begun to
draw up the written opinion or examination report (Rule 45bis.8(c)).
Rule 66.1bis
3.19 Furthermore, it should be noted that the written opinion established by the
International Searching Authority under Rule 43bis.1 (see paragraph 2.10(i)) is usually
considered to be the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority
for this purpose. The exception to this rule is that International Preliminary Examining
Authorities may notify the International Bureau that written opinions established by specified
International Searching Authorities (other than by that International Preliminary Examining
Authority acting in its role as an International Searching Authority) shall not be considered to
be a written opinion for this purpose. When this applies to a particular application, the
Authority must notify the applicant accordingly in writing. The Authority should in any case
take the International Searching Authority’s opinion into account when establishing its own
written opinion.
Basis of the Written Opinion or International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 66
3.20 The applicant is entitled to file amendments under Article 34, which will be taken
into account for subsequent written opinions and the international preliminary examination
report, as will any amendments which were made under Article 19, unless they are reversed
or superseded by those later made under Article 34 or the applicant fails to comply with

Page 27
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 46.5(b)(iii) or Rule 66.8(a) when filing these amendments (in particular where he fails to
indicate the basis for the amendments filed in the application as originally filed). The details
of permissible amendments are set forth in Chapter 20 at paragraphs 20.04 et seq.
3.21 The written opinion established under Rule 43bis.1 will however include a
notification including a time limit for response in the event that it is treated as the first written
opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority. The consequence of this is that
it will usually be necessary for amendments or arguments to be filed at the same time as the
demand in order to ensure that they are taken into account during international preliminary
examination.
Further Consideration
Rules 66.2, 66.4, 66.6
3.22 Where the International Preliminary Examining Authority has carried out a top-up
search and intends to raise objections based on prior art documents discovered in the top-up
search, a further written opinion should be issued. In other cases, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority may, at its discretion, issue further written opinions provided
that sufficient time is available, that the applicant makes an effort to meet the examiner’s
objections and provided that the Authority has sufficient resources to provide such services.
The Authority may also communicate informally with the applicant in writing, by telephone or
by personal interview.
Nature of the International Preliminary Examination Report
Article 35(2); Rule 70
3.23 The report issued by the Authority does not contain any statement on the question
whether or not the claimed invention is or seems to be patentable according to the law of any
country; it merely states, by a “Yes” or “No”, in relation to each claim whether such claim
seems to satisfy the said three criteria and each such statement is accompanied by citations
and other explanations.
Time Limit for Establishing the International Preliminary Examination Report
Rules 69.2; 70.15(b)
3.24 The International Preliminary Examining Authority must establish an international
preliminary examination report, entitled “international preliminary report on patentability
(Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation Treaty),” within whichever of the following periods
expires last:
(i) 28 months from the priority date;
(ii) six months from the time provided under Rule 69.1 for the start of the
international preliminary examination (see paragraphs 3.13 to 3.14); or
(iii) six months from the date of receipt by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority of any translation furnished under Rule 55.2 (see paragraphs 18.11 and 18.12).
Transmittal of the International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 71.1
3.25 The report is transmitted by the International Preliminary Examining Authority to
both the applicant and the International Bureau.
Further Processing of the International Preliminary Examination Report
Confidential Treatment
Article 38; Rule 94.2
3.26 Until the international preliminary examination report has been established it
remains confidential. Neither the International Bureau nor the International Preliminary
Examining Authority may therefore allow access to the file of the international preliminary
examination unless requested or authorized by the applicant. The International Preliminary

Page 28
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Examining Authority should provide documents to any elected Office which so requests once
the international preliminary examination report has been established. Subject to the
reimbursement of cost, authorized copies of the documents concerned may be provided to a
third party at the request of the applicant or any person authorized by the applicant.
Making Available of the International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 94.1(c)
3.27 Once the report has been transmitted to the elected Offices by the International
Bureau, 30 months from the priority date, the International Bureau will make the report
available to the public on behalf of those elected Offices who have notified their wish for the
International Bureau to supply this service, together with any translation and observations
made by the applicant on the translation.
Transmission of the International Preliminary Examination Report to Elected Offices
Rules 73.2, 93bis.1
3.28 The International Bureau transmits the international preliminary examination report
to the elected Offices after 30 months from the priority date, or earlier if the applicant makes
a request for early national processing of the international application under Article 40(2).
The transmittal by the International Bureau to any elected Office is effected only upon
request by the Office concerned and at the time specified by that Office.
Translation of International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 72
3.29 Where the international preliminary examination report is established in a language
other than English, the International Bureau translates the report into English and transmits
the translation to elected Offices who have requested such translations and also to the
applicant. The applicant is entitled to make written observations on the correctness of the
translation and sends copies of these observations to the International Bureau and to each of
the interested elected Offices.
Copies of Documents Cited in International Preliminary Examination Report
Article 36(4); Rule 71.2
3.30 At any time within seven years of the international filing date of the international
application, either the applicant or any elected Office is entitled to request copies of any
documents cited in the international preliminary examination report which were not cited in
the international search report to be sent to them by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority, subject, if required by the Authority, to the payment of costs for preparing and
mailing the copies (the applicant may be sent copies of such citations automatically with the
international preliminary examination report).

Page 29
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART II
THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION

Chapter 4
Content of the International Application (Other Than the Claims)

General
Article 3(2)
4.01 The contents of the international application are set out in Article 3(2). The
application must contain:
(i) a request (see the PCT Receiving Office Guidelines);
(ii) a description (see paragraphs 4.02 to 4.27);
(iii) one or more claims (see Chapter 5);
(iv) one or more drawings (where required; see paragraph 4.28); and
(v) an abstract (see Chapter 16).
This chapter discusses above items (ii) and (iv) insofar as they are the concern of the
International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Description
Article 5
4.02 The international application must “disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently
clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.” The
meaning of “person skilled in the art” is discussed in paragraph 13.11. This requirement of
disclosure should be met by the description with the aid of drawings, if any. The provisions
relating to the content of the description are set out in Rule 5. The purposes of these
provisions are:
(i) to ensure that the international application contains all the technical
information required to enable a skilled person to put the invention into practice; and
(ii) to enable the reader to understand the contribution to the art which the
inventor has made.
Rule 5.1
4.03 The description should start with the same title that appears in the request
(Form PCT/RO/101). The description should contain subheadings corresponding to those
contained in Section 204 (“Technical Field”, “Background Art”, “Disclosure of Invention”,
“Brief Description of Drawings”, “Best Mode(s) for Carrying Out the Invention”, “Industrial
Applicability” and, where appropriate, “Sequence Listing” and “Sequence Listing Free Text”).
The use of such subheadings is strongly recommended in order to provide uniformity in
publication and to facilitate access to the information contained in the international
application. Some of the recommended subheadings are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Technical Field
Rule 5.1(a)(i)
4.04 The application should specify the technical field to which it relates.
Background Art
Rules 5.1(a)(ii), 6.3(b)(i)
4.05 The description should also mention any background art of which the applicant is
aware, and which can be regarded as useful for understanding the invention and its
relationship to the prior art; identification of documents reflecting such art, especially patent

Page 30
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

specifications, should preferably be included. For further guidance concerning the statement
of prior art, see the appendix to this chapter. This applies in particular to the background art
corresponding to those technical features of the invention which are necessary for the
definition of the claimed subject matter but which, in combination, are part of the prior art
(see Rule 6.3(b)(i) and paragraph 5.05).
Disclosure of Invention
Rules 5.1(a)(iii), 9.1(iii)
4.06 The invention as claimed should be disclosed in such a way that the technical
problem, or problems, with which it deals can be appreciated and the solution can be
understood. To meet this requirement, only such details should be included as are
necessary for elucidating the invention. Where the invention lies in realizing what the
problem is (see Chapter 13), this should be apparent, and, where the means of solving the
problem (once realized) are obvious, the details given of its solution may, in practice, be
minimal.
4.07 When there is doubt, however, as to whether certain details are necessary, the
examiner should not require their excision. It is not necessary, moreover, that the invention
be presented explicitly in problem and solution form. Any advantageous effects which the
applicant considers the invention to have in relation to the prior art should be stated, but this
must not be done in such a way as to disparage any particular prior product or process. The
prior art nor the applicant’s invention cannot be referred to in a manner likely to mislead.
This might be done, for example, by an ambiguous presentation which gives the impression
that the prior art had solved less of the problem than was actually the case. Fair comment as
referred to in paragraph 4.30 is permitted. Regarding amendment to, or addition of, a
statement of problem, see paragraph 20.18.
Brief Description of Drawings
4.08 If drawings are included they should first be briefly described, in a manner such as:
“Figure 1 is a plan view of the transformer housing; Figure 2 is a side elevation of the
housing; Figure 3 is an end elevation looking in the direction of the arrow ‘X’ of Figure 2;
Figure 4 is a cross-section taken through AA of Figure 1.” When it is necessary to refer in
the description to elements of the drawings, the name of the element should be referred to as
well as its number, that is, the reference should not be in the form “3 is connected to 5 via 4”
but “resistor 3 is connected to capacitor 5 via switch 4.”
4.09 The description and drawings should be consistent with one another, especially in
the matter of reference numbers and other signs (see paragraph 4.28). However, where, as
a result of amendments to the description, whole passages are deleted, it may be tedious to
delete all superfluous references from the drawings and in such a case the examiner need
not pursue too rigorously the consistent use of reference signs as between the description
and the drawings. The reverse situation should not occur, that is, all reference numbers or
signs used in the description or claims should also appear on the drawings.
Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention
Rule 5.1(a)(v)
4.10 The international application should set forth at least the best mode contemplated
by the applicant for carrying out the invention claimed; this should be done in terms of
examples, where appropriate, and with reference to the drawings, if any. The applicant need
not point out which of the embodiments or examples is considered to be the best mode.
Determining compliance with the best mode requirement requires a two-prong inquiry. First,
it must be determined whether, at the time the application was filed, the applicant
contemplated a best mode for practicing the invention. This is a subjective inquiry which
focuses on the applicant’s state of mind at the time of filing. Second, if the inventor did, in
fact, contemplate a best mode, it must be determined whether the written description
disclosed the best mode such that a person skilled in the art could practice it. This is an

Page 31
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

objective inquiry, focusing on the scope of the claimed invention and the level of skill in the
art. The examiner should assume that the best mode is disclosed in the application, unless
evidence is presented that is inconsistent with that assumption. It is therefore extremely rare
that an objection based upon a lack of best mode would be made in an international
application. There currently are diverging practices among the International Authorities and
designated States with respect to the requirement for the application to set forth the best
mode. Where the national law of a designated State does not require the description of the
best mode but is satisfied with the description of any mode (whether it is the best
contemplated or not), failure to describe the best mode contemplated has no effect in that
State.
Structure and Function
4.11 In order that the requirements of Article 5 and of Rule 5.1(a)(iii) and (v) may be
fully satisfied, it is necessary that the invention be described not only in terms of its structure
but also in terms of its function, unless the functions of the various parts are immediately
apparent. Indeed, in some technical fields (for example, computers), a clear description of
function may be much more appropriate than an over-detailed description of structure.
Sufficiency
4.12 It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that he supplies, when he first files
his international application, a sufficient disclosure, that is, one that meets the requirements
of Article 5 in respect of the invention, as claimed in all of the claims (see paragraphs 5.43 to
5.53). If the disclosure is seriously insufficient, such a deficiency cannot be cured
subsequently by adding further examples or features without offending against
Article 34(2)(b) which requires that the subject matter content of the application must not go
beyond the disclosure in the international application (see paragraphs 20.03 and 20.10 et
seq.). Where the disclosure is insufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the
claimed invention, the claim may also be too broad to be supported by the description and
drawings. Therefore, in that case, there may be non-compliance with both the requirement
concerning sufficiency under this paragraph and the requirement of support of the claims
(see paragraphs 5.54 to 5.58).
4.13 Occasionally international applications are filed in which there is a fundamental
insufficiency in the invention in the sense that it cannot be carried out by a person skilled in
the art; there is then a failure to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 which is essentially
irreparable. Two instances thereof deserve special mention:
(a) The first is where the successful performance of the invention is dependent on
chance. That is to say, a person skilled in the art, in following the instructions for carrying out
the invention, finds either that the alleged results of the invention are not reproducible or that
success in obtaining these results is achieved in a totally unreliable way. An example where
this may arise is a microbiological process involving mutations. Such a case should be
distinguished from one where repeated success is assured even though accompanied by a
proportion of failures as can arise, for example, in the manufacture of small magnetic cores
or electronic components; in this latter case, provided the satisfactory parts can be readily
sorted by a nondestructive testing procedure, no objection necessarily arises under Article 5.
(b) The second instance is where successful performance of the invention is
inherently impossible because it would be contrary to well-established physical laws. This
applies, for example, to a perpetual motion machine (see paragraph 4.06).
Industrial Applicability
Article 33(1), (4); Rule 5.1(a)(vi)
4.14 Refer to chapter 14 for discussion of the industrial applicability of the invention.

Page 32
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings

Rule 5.2; Section 208; AI Annex C
4.15 Where the international application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide
and/or amino acid sequences, the description should contain a separate sequence listing
part complying with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions.
For handling of the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listings, refer to paragraphs 9.39,
15.12 and 15.13 (search stage) and paragraphs 18.17 and 18.18 (examination stage).
Deposit of Biological Material
Rule 13bis
4.16 The term “biological material” means any material containing genetic information
and capable of reproducing itself or of being reproduced in a biological system. Where the
application refers to biological material which cannot otherwise be described in the
application to meet the sufficiency of disclosure requirements of Article 5, the deposit of such
material is taken into consideration when determining whether those requirements have been
met.
4.17 The deposit is considered part of the description to the extent that the
requirements regarding sufficiency of disclosure under Article 5 cannot otherwise be
complied with; thus the deposit would be taken into account in determining compliance with
such requirements. Therefore, mere reference to the deposited material in an application
may not be sufficient to replace the explicit disclosure of such material in the application in
order to comply with the sufficiency of disclosure requirements. It should be noted, however,
that a reference to the deposit in the application would not create the presumption that the
deposit is necessary or required to comply with those requirements.
4.18 In accordance with paragraphs 4.16 and 4.17, a deposit of biological material is
taken into consideration in determining whether the sufficiency of disclosure requirements of
Article 5 has been met. Further, in some Authorities, a deposit of biological material is also
taken into consideration in determining whether the support requirement of Article 6 has
been met.
References to Deposited Microorganisms or Other Biological Material as Part of the
Description
Rule 13bis.7
4.19 The national law of certain States requires that references to deposited
microorganisms or other biological material furnished under Rule 13bis.3(a) be included in
the description (see the PCT Applicant’s Guide, Annex L). Where such a State is designated
and indications are presented on a separate sheet such as Form PCT/RO/134 (which may
be prepared using the PCT-SAFE software), that sheet should be numbered as a sheet of
the description, but this matter is not considered by the International Authority.
Requirements as to the Language of Sheets Containing References to Deposited
Microorganisms or Other Biological Material
Articles 11(1)(ii), 14(4); Rules 29.3, 30
4.20 Sheets containing references to deposited microorganisms or other biological
material must, if they are part of the description, be in the same language as that of the
description. This is a requirement for being accorded an international filing date
(Article 11(1)(ii), see paragraph 41 of the PCT Receiving Office Guidelines). If the
International Searching Authority discovers less than four months from the international filing
date that, despite an international filing date having been accorded, these sheets are not in
the same language as that of the description, it notifies the receiving Office using
Form PCT/ISA/209, indicating that it considers that the receiving Office should make a
finding that the international application is to be considered withdrawn under Article 14(4). If
the receiving Office does not make such a finding within four months of the international filing
date, the international application cannot be so considered withdrawn and the deficiency is

Page 33
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

merely noted in the written opinion (see paragraph 17.49). The applicant may then file an
appropriate correction or (if international preliminary examination is demanded) amendment.
General
Rule 5.1(b); Section 204
4.21 The manner and order of presentation of the various parts of the description
should be that specified in Rule 5.l(a) and Section 204 (see paragraph 4.03), unless,
“because of the nature of the invention, a different manner or a different order would result in
a better understanding and a more economic presentation.” Since the responsibility for a
clear and complete description of the invention lies with the applicant, the examiner should
exercise his discretion as to whether to object to the presentation. Some departure from the
requirements of Rule 5.1(a) is acceptable, provided the description is clear and orderly and
all the requisite information is present. For example, the requirements of Rule 5.1(a)(iii) (see
paragraph 4.06) may be waived where the invention is based on a fortuitous discovery, the
practical application of which is recognized as being useful, or where the invention breaks
entirely new ground. Also certain technically simple inventions may be fully comprehensible
with the minimum of description and but slight reference to prior art.
Rule 10.2
4.22 The description should be clear and straightforward with avoidance of unnecessary
technical jargon. In general, only such technical terms, signs and symbols should be used
as are generally accepted in the art. Little known or specially formulated technical terms may
be allowed, provided that they are adequately defined and that there is no generally
recognized equivalent. This discretion may be extended to foreign terms when there is no
equivalent in the language of the international application. Terms already having an
established meaning must not be used to mean something different as this is likely to cause
confusion. There may be circumstances where a term may legitimately be borrowed from an
analogous art. Terminology and signs should be consistent throughout the international
application.
4.23 In the particular case of inventions in the computer field, program listings in
programming languages cannot be relied on as the sole disclosure of the invention. The
description, as in other technical fields, should be written substantially in normal language,
possibly accompanied by flow diagrams or other aids to understanding, so that the invention
may be understood by those skilled in the art. Short excerpts from programs written in
commonly used programming languages can be accepted if they serve to illustrate an
embodiment of the invention.
Rule 10.1(a), (b), (d), (e)
4.24 When the properties of a material are referred to, the relevant units should be
specified if quantitative considerations are involved. If this is done by reference to a
published standard (for example, a standard of sieve sizes), and such standard is referred to
by a set of initials or similar abbreviation, it should be adequately identified in the description.
The metric system of units of weight and measures should be used or, if another system is
used, the units should additionally be expressed in the metric system. Similarly, temperature
should be expressed in degrees Celsius or also expressed in degrees Celsius if first
expressed in a different manner. Other physical values (that is, other than those having units
directly derivable from length, mass, time and temperature) should be expressed in the units
recognized in international practice; for example, for electric units the MKSA (Meter,
Kilogram, Second, Ampere) or SI (Système International) systems should be used.
Chemical and mathematical symbols, atomic weights and molecular formulae should be
those in general use, and technical terms, signs and symbols should be those “generally
accepted in the art.” In particular, if there are any agreed international standards in the art in
question, these should be adopted wherever practicable.
4.25 The use of proper names or similar words to refer to materials or articles is
undesirable insofar as such words merely denote origin or where they relate to a range of

Page 34
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

different products. If such a word is used, then in order to satisfy the requirements of
Article 5, the product should normally be sufficiently identified, without reliance upon the
word, to enable the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. However, where
such words have become internationally accepted as standard descriptive terms and have
acquired a precise meaning (for example, “Bowden” cable, “Bellville” washer), they may be
allowed without further identification of the product to which they relate.
4.26 References in international applications to other documents may relate either to
the background art or to a part of the disclosure of the invention. Where the reference
relates to the background art, it may be in the application as originally filed or introduced at a
later date (see paragraph 20.18). Where the reference relates directly to the disclosure of
the invention (for example, details of one of the components of a claimed apparatus) then, if
it is to be taken into account in respect of Article 5, it must be in the application as originally
filed and clearly identify the document referred to in such a manner that the document can be
easily retrieved. If matter in the document referred to is essential to satisfy the requirements
of Article 5, this matter should be incorporated into the description, because the patent
specification should, regarding the essential features of the invention, be self-contained, that
is, capable of being understood without reference to any other document.
4.27 A reference in the description to an unpublished, previously filed application (that
is, not published before the international filing date) should not be regarded as being part of
the disclosure, unless the application referred to is made available to the public on or before
the publication date of the international application. The reference to such an application
made available to the public on or before the publication date of the international application
may be replaced by the actual text referred to and may be taken into account by the
examiner. Similarly, references to textbooks and periodicals are allowable under the same
conditions if it can be proved that the content thereof was fixed prior to the international filing
date. In the case of any document made available to the public later than the publication
date of the international application or not to be published at all (for example, an application
withdrawn before publication), the examiner should not take into account the reference to
that document for the purposes of international preliminary examination. It should be noted,
however, that this practice relates only to the international phase and does not preclude any
designated or elected Office applying the relevant national law as far as it relates to the
contents of the disclosure of the international application as filed.
Drawings
Rule 11
4.28 The formal requirements relating to drawings are set down in Rules 11.10 to 11.13.
The only question likely to cause difficulty is whether the text matter included on the drawings
is absolutely indispensable. In the case of circuit diagrams, block schematics and flow
sheets, identifying catchwords for functional integers of complex system (for example,
“magnetic core store,” “speed integrator”) may be regarded as indispensable from a practical
point of view if they are necessary to enable a diagram to be interpreted rapidly and clearly.
However, such items can often be identified by a single numeral or letter which is then
explained in the description.
Expressions, Etc., Not to Be Used
Rule 9.1(i), (ii)
4.29 There are four categories of expressions which should not be contained in an
international application. These categories are specified in Rule 9.1. Examples of the kind
of matter coming within the first and second categories (contrary to morality or public order
(“ordre public”)) are: incitement to riot or to acts of disorder; incitement to criminal acts;
racial, religious or similar discriminatory propaganda; and grossly obscene matter. The
purpose of Rule 9 is to prohibit the kind of matter likely to induce riot or public disorder, or
lead to criminal or other generally offensive behavior. This Rule is likely to be invoked by the
examiner only in rare cases.

Page 35
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 9.1(iii)
4.30 It is necessary to discriminate in the third category (disparaging statements)
between libelous or similarly disparaging statements, which are not allowed, and fair
comment, for example, in relation to obvious or generally recognized disadvantages, or
disadvantages stated to have been found by the applicant, which, if relevant, is permitted.
Rule 9.1(iv)
4.31 The fourth category is irrelevant matter. It should be noted, however, that such
matter is specifically prohibited under the Rule only if it is “obviously irrelevant or
unnecessary,” for instance, if it has no bearing on the subject matter of the invention or its
background of relevant prior art (see also paragraph A4.05[2] in the appendix to this
chapter). The matter to be removed may already be obviously irrelevant or unnecessary in
the original description. It may, however, be matter which has become obviously irrelevant
or unnecessary only in the course of the examination proceedings, for example, owing to a
limitation of the claims of the patent to one of the originally several alternatives.
4.32 The receiving Office (see the PCT Receiving Office Guidelines) the International
Searching Authority (see paragraph 15.35), the Authority specified for supplementary search
(see paragraph 15.88A) or the International Bureau will deal with matter falling under
Rule 9.1. The applicant should be informed of the category applied under which the
prohibited matter is to be removed.
Appendix to Chapter 4

Background Art
A4.05 The International Preliminary Examining Authorities have divergent practices
concerning whether it is appropriate to invite the applicant to introduce references to the prior
art into the international application. The guidelines below may be relied upon by the
Authorities as appropriate.
A4.05[1] The insertion into the statement of prior art of references to documents
identified subsequently, for example by the search report, may be appropriate, provided that
the amendment would not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed.
For instance, while the originally filed description of prior art may give the impression that the
inventor has developed the invention from a certain point, the cited documents may show
that certain stages in, or aspects of, these alleged developments were already known. The
examiner may invite the inclusion of a reference to these documents and a brief summary of
the relevant contents. Care should be taken that any such inclusion does not contravene
Article 34(2)(b) (see paragraphs 20.10 to 20.19).
A4.05[2] Since the reader is presumed to have the general background and technical
knowledge appropriate to the art, and it is not in any case permitted to make amendments
which go beyond the disclosure as filed, the examiner should not invite the applicant to insert
anything in the nature of a treatise or research report or explanatory matter which is
obtainable from textbooks or is otherwise well known. Likewise, the examiner should not
invite the applicant to provide a detailed description of the content of cited prior documents.
It is sufficient that the reason for the inclusion of the reference is indicated, unless, in a
particular case, a more detailed description is necessary for a full understanding of the
claimed invention. Lists of several reference documents relating to the same feature or
aspect of the prior art are not required; only the most appropriate ones need to be referred
to. On the other hand, the examiner should not invite the applicant to delete any such
unnecessary matter, except when it is very extensive.

Page 36
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 5
Claims

General
Article 3(2)
5.01 The international application must contain “one or more claims.”
Article 6
5.02 The claims must:
(i) “define the matter for which protection is sought;”
(ii) “be clear and concise;” and
(iii) “be fully supported by the description.”
5.03 This chapter sets out the appropriate form and content of the claims, together with
how they should be interpreted for the purposes of assessing the novelty and inventive step
of the inventions which they define, and searching for prior art which may be relevant to
making that determination.
Form and Content of Claims
Rule 6.3(a)
5.04 The claims must be drafted in terms of the “technical features of the invention.”
This means that claims should not contain any statements relating, for example, to
commercial advantages or other non-technical matters, but statements of purpose should be
allowed if they assist in defining the invention. It is not necessary that every feature should
be expressed in terms of a structural limitation. Since it is a matter for national law, the
examiner should normally not object to the inclusion of functional limitations in a claim
provided that a person skilled in the art would have no difficulty in providing some means of
performing this function without exercising inventive skill or that such means are fully
disclosed in the application concerned. A functional limitation must be evaluated and
considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person
skilled in the art in the context in which it is used. Claims to the use of the invention in the
sense of the technical application thereof are permissible. See paragraph 5.21.
Rule 6.3(b)(ii), (c); Section 205
5.05 Rule 6.3(b) defines the two-part form which a claim should take “whenever
appropriate.” The first part should contain a statement indicating the designation of the
subject matter of the invention, that is, the general technical class of apparatus, process,
etc., to which the claimed invention relates, followed by a statement of those technical
features “which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject matter but which, in
combination, are part of the prior art.” It is clear from this wording that it is necessary only to
refer to those prior art features which are relevant to the invention. For example, if the
invention relates to a photographic camera but the claimed inventive step relates entirely to
the shutter, it would be sufficient for the first part of the claim to read: “A photographic
camera including a focal plane shutter having...” (here recite the known combination of
features which is utilized) and there is no need to refer also to the other known features of a
camera such as the lens and viewfinder. The second part or “characterizing portion” should
state the technical features which, in combination with the features stated under the first part
(Rule 6.3(b)(i)), it is desired to protect, that is, the features which the invention adds to the
prior art. If the search results, or any additional documents considered to be relevant in
accordance with Article 33(6), reveal that any feature in the second part of the claim was, in
fact, already known in combination with all the features in the first part of the claim and in that
combination have the same effect as they have in the full combination according to the
claimed invention, the examiner may invite the applicant to transfer such feature or features
to the first part. Where, however, a claim relates to a novel combination, and where the
division of the features of the claim between the prior art part and the characterizing part

Page 37
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

could be made in more than one way without inaccuracy and if the division of the features
chosen by the applicant is not incorrect, the examiner should take no action. If the examiner,
in the first written opinion, invites the applicant to adopt a different division but the applicant
does not follow the invitation, the examiner should not pursue the matter further since the
manner of claiming is a matter for national laws of designated or elected States.
5.06 The applicant may be invited to follow the above two-part formulation where, for
example, it is clear that the applicant’s invention resides in a distinct improvement in an old
combination of parts or steps. However, as is indicated by Rule 6, this form need only be
used in appropriate cases. The nature of the invention may be such that this form of claim is
unsuitable, for example, because it would give a distorted or misleading picture of the
invention or the prior art. Examples of the kind of invention which may require a different
presentation are:
(i) the combination of known elements or steps of equal status, the inventive step
lying solely in the combination;
(ii) the modification of, as distinct from addition to, a known chemical process, for
example, by omitting one substance or substituting one substance for another; and
(iii) a complex system of functionally interrelated parts, the inventive step
concerning changes in several of these parts or in their interrelationships.
5.07 In examples (i) and (ii), the two-part form of claim according to Rule 6.3(b) may be
artificial and inappropriate, whereas, in example (iii), it might lead to an inordinately lengthy
and involved claim. Another example in which the two-part form of claim provided for in
Rule 6.3(b) may sometimes be inappropriate is where the claimed invention is a new
chemical compound or group of compounds that does not fall within a known class. It is also
likely that other cases will arise in which it will be appropriate to formulate the claim in a
different form.
5.08 When determining whether or not to invite the applicant to put a claim in the
two-part form provided by Rule 6.3(b), it is important to assess whether this form is
“appropriate.” In this respect, it should be borne in mind that the purpose of the two-part
form of claim is to allow the reader to see clearly which features necessary for the definition
of the claimed subject matter are, in combination, part of the prior art. If this is sufficiently
clear from the indication of prior art provided in the description, to meet the requirement of
Rule 5.1(a)(ii), it is appropriate to present the claim in a form other than the two-part form
provided by Rule 6.3(b).
Rule 11.10(a), (b), (c)
5.09 The claims, as well as the description, “may contain chemical or mathematical
formulae” but not drawings. “Any claim may contain tables” but “only if the subject matter of
the claim makes the use of tables desirable.” In view of the use of the word “desirable,” the
examiner should not object to the use of tables in claims where this form is convenient.
Rule 6.2(a)
5.10 The claims must not, in respect of the technical features of the invention, rely on
references to the description or drawings “except where absolutely necessary.” In particular,
they must not normally rely on references such as: “as described in part ... of the
description” or “as illustrated in Figure 2 of the drawings.” The emphatic wording of the
excepting clause should be noted. Thus, the applicant should be invited to show that it is
“absolutely necessary” to rely on reference to the description or drawings in appropriate
cases. An example of an exception would be that in which the invention as claimed involved
some peculiar shape illustrated in the drawings but which could not be readily defined either
in words or by a simple mathematical formula. Another special case is that in which the
invention relates to chemical products whose features can be defined only by means of
graphs or diagrams.

Page 38
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 6.2(b)
5.11 If there are drawings and the technical features of the claims would be rendered
more intelligible by relating those features to the corresponding features of the drawings, this
should preferably be done by placing the appropriate reference signs in parentheses after
the features in the claims. This should be done in both parts of claims having the preferred
form specified in Rule 6.3(b). These reference signs are not, however, to be construed as
limiting the scope of a claim, but merely as aids to an easier understanding of the defined
subject matter.
Kinds of Claim
Categories
Rule 13; Section 206; AI Annex B
5.12 There are two basic kinds of claim, viz., claims to a physical entity (product,
apparatus) and claims to an activity (process, use). The first basic kind of claim (“product
claim”) includes a substance or composition (for example, chemical compound or a mixture
of compounds) as well as any physical entity (for example, object, article, apparatus,
machine, or system of cooperating apparatus) which is produced by a person’s technical
skill. Examples are “steering mechanism incorporating an automatic feedback circuit...;” “a
woven garment comprising ...;” “an insecticide consisting of X, Y, Z;” or “a communications
system comprising a plurality of transmitting and receiving stations.” The second basic kind
of claim (“process claim”) is applicable to all kinds of activities in which the use of some
material product for effecting the process is implied; the activity may be exercised upon
material products, upon energy, upon other processes (as in control processes) or upon
living things (see, however, paragraphs 9.04 to 9.15 which relate to subjects that may be
excluded from international search or preliminary examination).
5.13 It should be noted that claims which are worded differently may, in reality, fall
within the same category and have effectively the same scope. For example, a claim
referring to a “system” and a claim referring to “apparatus” may both be in the “apparatus”
category. It should be further noted that it is permitted to include in the same international
application claims of the said different categories provided that they comply with the
requirement of Rule 13.1 (see Chapter 10). The examiner should bear in mind that the
presence of such different claims may assist an applicant in later obtaining full protection for
the invention in all the designated/elected States since infringement of a patent is dealt with
by national law. Consequently, while the examiner should draw attention to an unnecessary
proliferation of independent claims (see paragraph 5.42), he should not adopt an
over-academic or rigid approach to the presence of a number of claims which are differently
worded but apparently of similar effect.
5.14 Rule 13.3 states that “the determination whether a group of inventions is so linked
as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the
inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim.” This
means that while the examiner should take exception to an unnecessary proliferation of
independent claims, the examiner should not take exception to two or more independent
claims in the same category, provided that there is a unifying inventive concept and that the
claims as a whole satisfy the requirement of Article 6 that they should be “concise” (see
paragraph 5.42). In applying this principle, the examiner should have regard to the remarks
made in paragraph 5.13 concerning claims of apparently similar scope. However there are
other circumstances where it may not be appropriate to cover the subject matter of an
invention by a single independent claim in a particular category, for example, (1) where the
invention relates to an improvement in two separate but interrelated articles which may be
sold separately, such as an electric plug and socket or transmitter and receiver, (2) where an
invention is concerned with electrical bridge-rectifier circuits, it might be necessary to include
separate independent claims to a single-phase and to poly-phase arrangements
incorporating such circuits since the number of circuits needed per phase is different in the

Page 39
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

two arrangements, (3) where the invention resides in a group of new chemical compounds
and there are a number of processes for the manufacture of such compounds.
Independent and Dependent Claims
Rule 13.4
5.15 All international applications will contain one or more independent main claims
directed to the essential features of the invention. Any such claim may be followed by one or
more claims concerning specific forms of that invention. It is evident that any claim relating
to a specific form must effectively include also the essential features of the invention, and
hence must include all the features of at least one independent claim. The specific forms
should be construed broadly as meaning any more specific definition or specifically different
embodiments of the invention than that set out in the main claim or claims. It should be
noted that, subject to Rule 13.1, it is permitted to include a reasonable number of dependent
claims claiming specific forms of the claimed invention in the independent claim, even where
the features of any dependent claim could be considered as constituting in themselves an
invention.
Rules 6.4(a), (b), 66.2(a)
5.16 Any dependent claim must include a reference to the claim from which it depends,
and must be construed as including all the limitations contained in the claim to which it refers.
A multiple dependent claim includes all the limitations contained in the particular claim in
relation to which it is considered. See the appendix to this chapter and paragraph 9.41 for
further guidance with respect to multiple dependent claims.
Rule 6.4(c)
5.17 All dependent claims, however referred back, should be grouped together to the
extent and in the most practical way possible. The arrangement must therefore be one
which enables the association of related claims to be readily determined and their meaning in
association to be readily construed. The examiner should invite the applicant to submit a
suitable amendment if the arrangement of claims is such that it creates obscurity in the
definition of the subject matter to be protected.
5.18 A claim, whether independent or dependent, can contain alternatives, provided
those alternatives are of a similar nature and can fairly be substituted one for another, and
provided also that the number and presentation of alternatives in a single claim does not
make the claim obscure or difficult to construe (see also paragraphs 10.09 and 10.17).
5.19 A claim may also contain a reference to another claim even if it is not a dependent
claim as defined in Rule 6.4. One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different
category (for example, “Apparatus for carrying out the process of Claim 1 ...,” or “Process for
the manufacture of the product of Claim 1 ...”). Similarly, in a situation like a plug and socket
example, a claim to the one part referring to the other cooperating part, for example, “plug for
cooperation with the socket of Claim 1 ...,” is not a dependent claim as it does not expressly
contain the limitations of the earlier claim from which it depends, rather it only has a
functional relationship to that earlier claim.
Interpretation of Claims
Article 6
5.20 Claims should be interpreted the same way for both search and examination
purposes. Each claim should be read giving the words the ordinary meaning and scope
which would be attributed to them by a person skilled in the relevant art, unless in particular
cases the description gives the words a special meaning, by explicit definition or otherwise.
See the appendix to this chapter for further guidance with regard to the interpretation of
claims.
“Use” Claims
5.21 A claim to a substance or composition for a particular use should generally be
construed as meaning a substance or composition which is in fact suitable for the stated use;

Page 40
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

a known product which prima facie is the same as the substance or composition defined in
the claim, but which is in a form which would render it unsuitable for the stated use, would
not deprive the claim of novelty, but if the known product is in a form in which it is in fact
suitable for the stated use, though it has never been described for that use, it would deprive
the claim of novelty. For example, a claim to a known substance or composition for the first
use in surgical, therapeutic and/or diagnostic methods that is presented in a form such as:
“substance or composition X” followed by the indication of the use, for instance “... for use as
a medicament”, “... as an antibacterial agent” or “... for curing disease Y” will be regarded as
restricted to the substance or composition when presented or packaged for the use. See
also paragraph 5.22. See the appendix to this chapter for further guidance with respect to
use claims, and for an explanation of when an Authority may regard a “use” claim as
equivalent to a “process” claim.
Preamble
5.22 The effect of the preamble on the evaluation of the elements of a claim for search
and examination purposes should be determined on a case by case basis in light of the facts
in each case. During search and examination, statements in the preamble reciting the
purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether
the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of
process claims, a difference in process steps) between the claimed invention and the prior
art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. In two-part claims as defined in Rule 6.3(b),
the preamble is regarded as a limitation on the scope of the claim.
5.23 If a claim commences with such words as “Apparatus for carrying out the process,
etc., ...” this must be construed as meaning merely apparatus suitable for carrying out the
process. An apparatus which otherwise possesses all of the features specified in the claim,
but which would be unsuitable for the stated purpose or which would require modification to
enable it to be so used, should not normally be considered as coming within the scope of the
claim. For example, a claim recites a machine for cutting meat comprising apparatus
limitations. The claim language “machine for cutting meat” sets forth only the function of the
apparatus (that is, for cutting meat) without any positive structural limitations. Such language
would not be given any weight in assessing novelty and inventive step as long as the prior art
cutting machine was capable of cutting meat. In this case, one should treat the words “for
cutting meat” merely as limitation to a machine adapted to cut meat. Thus, one would look to
the prior art to see whether the cutting machine would be inherently capable of cutting the
meat, whether or not the prior art description specified what material is cut by the machine.
Similar considerations apply to a claim for a product for a particular use. For example, if a
claim refers to “mold for molten steel,” this implies certain limitations for the mold. Therefore,
a plastic ice cube tray with a melting point much lower than that of steel would not come
within the claim. Similarly, a claim to a substance or composition for a particular use should
be construed as meaning a substance or composition which is in fact suitable for the stated
use; a known product which is per se the same as the substance or composition defined in
the claim, but which is in a form which would render it unsuitable for the stated use, would
not deprive the claim of novelty.
Open and Closed Claims
5.24 In evaluating novelty or inventive step, the examiner should consider which type of
the transition phrase, such as “consisting of,” “comprising,” “characterized by,” or “consisting
essentially of” is used in the claims. The subject matter to be searched depends on the type
of transition phrase used.
(a) Where a claim is drafted using a “closed” type of transition phrase, the claim
cannot be construed as including products or processes that include structural elements or
process steps other than those set forth in the claim. For example, if a claim recites “a
product consisting only of A, B and C,” it cannot be construed as including, and is novel over,
prior art that discloses a product having A, B, C and D, or any other additional feature or

Page 41
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

elements. The phrase “consisting of” may be interpreted by some Authorities as a “closed”
type of transition phrase, however, other Authorities treat such language as equivalent to
“consisting essentially of” as noted in (c) below.
(b) Where a claim is drafted using an “open” type of transition phrase, it can be
construed as including products or processes that include non-recited components or
process steps, respectively. For example, if a claim recites “a product comprising A, B and
C,” it can be construed as including, and lacks novelty over, prior art that discloses a product
having A, B, C and D, as well as any additional feature or element.
(c) Where a claim is drafted using “consisting essentially of” as the transition
phrase, the claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a
closed format and fully open claims. The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits
the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially
affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of
search and examination, absent a clear indication in the description or claims of what the
basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as
equivalent to open (for example, “comprising”) language.
“Means-Plus-Function” Claims
5.25 Where a limitation in the claim defines a means or a step in terms of its function or
characteristics without specifying the structure or material or act in support thereof, such a
limitation should be construed as defining any structure or material or act which is capable of
performing the defined function or which has the defined characteristics, unless the means
are further specified in the claim. If the means are further specified, the claim would be
interpreted to include those further specified limitations. For example, if a claim recites valve
means for restricting the flow of fluid, it would be interpreted by the examiner to include the
further specified limitation of a valve means rather than any means for restricting flow of fluid.
As another example, a claim aimed at “a building material incorporating a layer which
insulates heat” should be interpreted as a building material incorporating any “product” that is
“a layer which insulates heat.” It should be noted, however, that the issues of whether such
means-plus-function claims are clear and concise or not and whether the disclosure of the
claimed invention is sufficient for a person skilled in the art or not should be determined
separately.
“Product-by-Process” Claims
5.26 Where a claim defines a product in terms of the process by which the product is
made, the claim as a whole is directed to a product. Such a claim lacks novelty if a prior art
product, even if made by an undisclosed process, appears to be inherently the same as, or
indistinguishable from, the claimed invention. See the appendix to this chapter for more
guidance with respect to product by process claims.
5.27 Where a product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is
made, or where the manufacturing process would be expected to impart distinctive
characteristics on the final product, the examiner would consider the process steps in
determining the subject of the search and assessing patentability over the prior art. For
example, a claim recites “a two-layer structured panel which is made by welding together an
iron sub-panel and a nickel sub-panel.” In this case, the process of “welding” would be
considered by the examiner in determining the subject of the search and in assessing
patentability over the prior art since the process of welding produces physical properties in
the end product which are different from those produced by processes other than welding;
that is, the product can only be defined by the process step. Novelty of the claim is not
brought into question unless an identical two-layer structural panel made by means of
welding is discovered in the prior art.

Page 42
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Product and Apparatus Limitations in Process Claims

5.28 Product and apparatus limitations that appear in process claims must be taken into
account for search and examination purposes. See paragraph 5.22 for the effect of the
preamble on claim interpretation.
Inconsistency Between Claims and Description
5.29 Where there is any serious inconsistency between claims and description,
amendments to remove this should be invited from the applicant. For example, the
description may state, or may imply, that a certain technical feature not mentioned in the
claims is essential to the performance of the invention. In such a case, the examiner should
invite amendment of the claims to include this feature. However, if the applicant can show
convincingly by way of response that it would be clear to a person skilled in the art that the
description was incorrect in suggesting that the feature in question was essential,
amendment of the description should be invited instead. Another form of inconsistency is
that in which the description and drawings include one or more embodiments of the invention
which appear to fall outside the subject matter covered by the claims (for example, the claims
all specify an electric circuit employing electronic tubes and one of the embodiments employs
semiconductors as an alternative). Here again the applicant should be invited to amend the
claim or the description and drawings to remove the inconsistency and thus avoid any
possible uncertainty which could arise later as to the meaning of the claims. However,
inconsistencies which do not cause doubt as to the meaning of the claims may be
overlooked.
5.30 General statements in the description which imply that the extent of protection may
be expanded in some vague and not precisely defined way should be objected to as not
complying with Article 6. In particular, objection should be raised to any statement which
refers to the extent of protection being expanded to cover the “spirit” of the invention. Where
the claims are directed to a combination of features only, any statement in the description
which seems to imply that protection is nevertheless sought not only for the combination as a
whole but also for individual features or sub-combinations thereof should be objected to.
Clarity
Article 6
5.31 The requirement that the claims should be clear applies to individual claims and
also to the claims as a whole. The clarity of the claims is of the utmost importance for the
purposes of formulating an opinion on the questions of whether the claimed invention
appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step and to be industrially applicable in view of
their function in defining the matter for which protection is sought. Therefore the meaning of
the terms of a claim should, as far as possible, be clear for the person skilled in the art from
the wording of the claim alone (see also paragraph 5.20).
5.32 Each claim must set forth the scope of the invention sought to be protected with a
reasonable degree of clarity. Clarity of claim language must be analyzed in light of the
content of the particular application disclosure, the teachings of the prior art, and the claim
interpretation that would be given by the person skilled in the art at the time the invention
was made. If a person skilled in the art can determine the boundaries of the claimed
invention with a reasonable degree of certainty, the claim complies with the requirement for
clarity. Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with lack of clarity. If the scope of the subject
matter embraced by the claims is clear, and if the applicant has not otherwise indicated that
he intends the invention to be of a scope different from that defined in the claims, then the
claims comply with the requirement for clarity.
5.33 An independent claim should clearly specify all of the essential features needed to
define the invention except insofar as such features are implied by the generic terms used;
for example, a claim to a “bicycle” does not need to mention the presence of wheels. If a
claim is to a process for producing the product of the invention, then the process as claimed

Page 43
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

should be one which, when carried out in a manner which would seem reasonable to a
person skilled in the art, necessarily has as its end result that particular product; otherwise,
there is an internal inconsistency and therefore lack of clarity in the claim. In the case of a
product claim, if the product is of a well-known kind and the invention lies in modifying it in a
certain respect, it is sufficient if the claim clearly identifies the product and specifies what is
modified and in what way. Similar considerations apply to claims for an apparatus.
Clarity of Relative Terms
5.34 A claim that includes vague or equivocal forms of wording which leave the reader
in doubt as to the scope of a feature should be objected to for lack of clarity. A claim should
not use a relative or similar term such as “thin”, “wide” or “strong” unless the term has a
well-recognized meaning in the particular art, for example “high-frequency” in relation to an
amplifier, and this is the meaning intended. If a term of degree appears in a claim, the
examiner should determine whether one skilled in the art would be apprised of the meaning
of the term either by a disclosure of a standard for measuring that degree in the description
or in view of the prior art and state of the art. It may be appropriate to invite the applicant to
either define or excise the term if he could do so without extending the subject matter beyond
the content of the application as filed in contravention of Article 19(2) or 34(2)(b). An
applicant cannot rely on an unclear term to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior
art.
5.35 The area defined by the claims must be as precise as the invention allows. As a
general rule, claims which attempt to define the invention, or a feature thereof, by a result to
be achieved should be objected to as lacking clarity. Objection may also be raised under
lack of support where the claimed scope is broader than what the description enables.
However, no objection should be raised if the invention can only be defined in such terms
and if the result is one which can be achieved without undue experimentation (see
paragraph 5.46), for example, directly and positively verified by tests or procedures
adequately specified in the description and involving nothing more than trial and error. For
example, the invention may relate to an ashtray in which a smoldering cigarette end will be
automatically extinguished due to the shape and relative dimensions of the ashtray. The
latter may vary considerably in a manner difficult to define whilst still providing the desired
effect. So long as the claim specifies the construction and shape of the ashtray as clearly as
possible, it may define the relative dimensions by reference to the result to be achieved
without being objected to for lack of clarity, provided that the description includes adequate
directions to enable the reader to determine the required dimensions by routine test
procedures.
5.36 Where the invention relates to a product, it may be defined in a claim in various
ways, viz., by a chemical formula, as a product of a process or by its parameters. Definition
of a product solely by its parameters may be appropriate in those cases where the invention
cannot be adequately defined in any other way, provided that those parameters can be
clearly and reliably determined either by indications in the description or by objective
procedures which are recognized in the art. The same applies to a process related feature
which is defined by parameters. This can arise, for example, in the case of macromolecular
chains. Cases in which non-art recognized parameters are employed, or a non-accessible
apparatus for measuring the parameters is used, may be objectionable on grounds of lack of
clarity. The examiner should be aware of the possibility that applicants may attempt to
employ unusual parameters to disguise lack of novelty (see paragraph 12.04).
5.37 Where a claim for an apparatus or a product seeks to define the invention by
reference to features of the use to which the apparatus or product is to be put, a lack of
clarity can result. This is particularly the case where the claim not only defines the product
itself but also specifies its relationship to a second product which is not part of the claimed
invention (for example, a cylinder head for an engine, where the former is defined by features
of where it is connected in the latter). Such a claim must either set forth a clear definition of
the individual product being claimed by wording the claims appropriately (for example, by

Page 44
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

substituting “connectable” for “connected”), or be directed to a combination of the first and

second products (for example, “engine with a cylinder head” or “engine comprising a cylinder
head”). It may also be permissible to define the dimensions and/or shape of a first product in
an independent claim by general reference to the dimensions and/or corresponding shape of
a second product that is not part of the claimed first product but is related to it through use
(for example, in the case of a mounting bracket for a vehicle number-plate, where the bracket
frame and fixing elements are defined in relation to the outer shape of the number-plate).
5.38 Particular attention is required whenever the word “about” or similar terms, such as
“approximately,” are used. Such a word may be applied, for example, to a particular value
(for example, “about 200°C”) or to a range (for example, “about X to about Y”). In each case,
the examiner should exercise judgment as to whether the meaning is sufficiently clear in the
context of the application read as a whole. Moreover, if such words as “about” prevent the
invention from being unambiguously distinguished from the prior art, an objection should be
raised as to lack of novelty or inventive step.
Clarity of Other Terms
5.39 Trademarks and similar expressions characterize the commercial origin of goods,
rather than the properties of the goods (which may change from time to time) relevant to the
invention. Therefore the examiner should invite the applicant to remove trademarks and
similar expressions in claims, unless their use is unavoidable; they may be allowed
exceptionally if they are generally recognized as having a precise meaning (see also
paragraph 5.34).
5.40 Expressions like “preferably,” “for example,” “such as” or “more particularly” should
be looked at carefully to ensure that they do not introduce ambiguity. The examiner should
regard expressions of this kind as having no limiting effect on the scope of a claim; that is to
say, the feature following any such expression should be regarded as entirely optional.
5.41 Generally, the subject matter of a claim is defined by means of positive features.
However, the extent of a claim may be limited by means of a “disclaimer,” a “negative
limitation,” or an “exclusion;” in other words, an element clearly defined by technical features
may be expressly excluded from the protection claimed, for example in order to meet the
requirement of novelty. A claim may also include a negative limitation or language that
defines subject matter that is not present in the claimed invention (for example, “wherein the
composition is free of water”). There is nothing per se ambiguous or uncertain about a
negative limitation. A negative limitation renders the claim unclear where it is an attempt to
claim the invention by excluding what the applicant did not invent rather than clearly and
concisely reciting what he did invent. A claim which recites the limitation “said homopolymer
being free from the proteins, soaps, resins, and sugars present in natural Hevea rubber” in
order to exclude the characteristics of the prior art product, is considered to be clear where
each recited limitation is clear. In addition, the negative limitation “incapable of forming a dye
with said oxidized developing agent” is clear because the boundaries of the patent protection
sought are clear. If alternative elements are positively recited in the description, they may be
explicitly excluded in the claims. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for
exclusion.
Conciseness, Number of Claims
Rule 6.1(a)
5.42 The requirement that the claims should be concise refers to the claims in their
entirety as well as to the individual claims. For example, undue repetition of words or an
undue multiplicity of claims of a trivial nature could be considered as not complying with this
requirement. See the appendix to this chapter for further guidance relating to determinations
of “conciseness” of claims.

Page 45
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Support in Description
Article 6
5.43 The claims “shall be fully supported by the description.” This means that there
must be a basis in the description for the subject matter of every claim and that the scope of
the claims must not be broader than is justified by the description and drawings.
5.44 As a general rule, a claim is regarded as supported by the description unless,
exceptionally, there are well-founded reasons for believing that the person skilled in the art
would be unable, on the basis of the information given in the application as filed, to extend
the particular teaching of the description to the whole of the field claimed by using routine
methods of experimentation or analysis. Support must, however, relate to the features of the
claimed invention; vague statements or assertions having no technical or other relevant
content provide no basis. The examiner should raise an objection of lack of support only if
there are well-founded reasons. Where an objection is raised, the reasons, where possible,
should be supported specifically by a published document.
Clear and Complete Disclosure of Claimed Invention
Article 5
5.45 The subject matter of each claim must be supported by the description and
drawings “in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a
person skilled in the art.” The disclosure of the claimed invention is considered sufficiently
clear and complete if it provides information which is sufficient to allow the invention to be
carried out by a person skilled in the art as of the international filing date, without undue
experimentation.
5.46 The disclosure is aimed at a person skilled in the art (see paragraph 13.11). This
person is considered, if necessary, to use the general knowledge which would be possessed
by such a person to supplement the information contained in the application. The disclosure
must be sufficient to carry out the invention on the basis of the knowledge of a person skilled
in the art at the time of the international filing date, not at the time of the search and
examination. Although a reasonable amount of trial and error is permissible, a person skilled
in the art must, on the basis of the disclosure of the claimed invention and the general
knowledge, be able to carry out the invention without “undue experimentation.” This is
applicable particularly in the field of unexplored technologies.
5.47 Factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is needed
to carry out the claimed invention include:
(i) the breadth of the claims;
(ii) the nature of the invention;
(iii) the general knowledge of a person skilled in the art;
(iv) the level of predictability in the art;
(v) the amount of direction provided in the application, including references to
prior art; and
(vi) the amount of experimentation required to carry out the claimed invention on
the basis of the disclosure.
5.48 The breadth of the claims is relevant to the determination of undue
experimentation, since a person skilled in the art must be able to carry out the entire scope of
the claimed invention. For example, the applicant is not entitled to claim everything within
the scope of the invention if the application only discloses how to carry out part of the
claimed invention. However, even in unpredictable arts, it is not necessary to provide
examples covering every possible variation within the scope of a claim. Representative
examples together with an explanation of how these can be applied to the scope of the claim

Page 46
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

as a whole will ordinarily be sufficient if a person skilled in the art could carry out the claimed
invention without undue experimentation.
5.49 The subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, is essential to
determine the general knowledge of a person skilled in the art and the state of the art. For
example, if the selection of the values for various parameters is a matter of routine for a
person skilled in the art, such a selection may not be considered as requiring undue
experimentation.
5.50 “The amount of direction provided in the application” refers to the information
explicitly or implicitly contained in the description, claims and drawings, including working
examples and references to other applications or documents. The more that is known in the
prior art by a person skilled in the art about the nature of the invention and the more the art is
predictable, the less information in the application itself is needed in order to carry out the
claimed invention. For example, there is predictability in the art if a person skilled in the art
can readily anticipate the effect of a feature of the claimed invention.
5.51 In addition to the time and expenses needed for carrying out the experimentation,
the character of the experimentation, for example, whether it constitutes merely routine work
or goes beyond such routine, should also be considered.
Sufficiency Commensurate with the Claims
5.52 Most claims are generalizations from one or more particular examples. The extent
of generalization permissible is a matter which the examiner must judge in each particular
case in the light of the relevant prior art. An appropriate claim is one which is not so broad
that it goes beyond the invention nor yet so narrow as to deprive the applicant of a just
reward for the disclosure of the invention. Obvious modifications and uses of equivalents to
that which the applicant has described should not be questioned. In particular, if it is
reasonable to predict that all the variants covered by the claims have the properties or uses
the applicant ascribes to them in the description, it is proper for the applicant to draft the
claims accordingly.
5.53 A claim in generic form, that is, relating to a whole class, for example, of materials
or machines, may be acceptable even if of broad scope, if there is fair support in the
description and there is no reason to suppose that the invention cannot be carried out
through the whole of the field claimed. Where the information given appears insufficient to
enable a person skilled in the art to extend the teaching of the description to parts of the field
claimed but not explicitly described by using routine methods of experimentation or analysis,
the examiner should invite the applicant to establish, by suitable response, that the invention
can in fact be readily applied on the basis of the information given over the whole field
claimed or, failing this, to restrict the claim to accord with the description. An example of this
might be a claim to a specified method of treating “synthetic resin molding” to obtain certain
changes in physical characteristics. If all of the examples described related to thermoplastic
resins, and the method was such as to appear inappropriate to thermosetting resins, then
limitation of the claims to thermoplastic resins might be necessary to comply with the
sufficiency requirement.
Relationship of Claims to Disclosure
5.54 The claimed invention must be fully supported by the description and drawings,
thereby showing that the applicant only claims subject matter which he had recognized and
described on the international filing date.
5.55 The claims are not consistent and not commensurate with the description and
drawings if, after reading the application, the claimed invention is still not at the disposal of a
person skilled in the art, because an essential element for the function or operation of the
invention is missing from the claim. For example, consider a claim that relates to improved
fuel oil compositions which have a given desired property. The description provides support
for one way of obtaining fuel oils having this property, which is by the presence of defined

Page 47
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

amounts of a certain additive. No other ways of obtaining fuel oils having the desired
property are disclosed. If the claim makes no mention of the additive, the claim is not fully
supported by the description. Another example would consist in the claim not being
consistent with the disclosure, for instance, due to contradictions between the elements
contained in the claims and the description. One other example would be that, having regard
to the description and the drawings, the scope of the claims covers an area which was not
recognized by the applicant, for example, mere speculation of possibilities that have not been
explored yet.
5.56 A claim may broadly define a feature in terms of its function, even where only one
example of the feature has been given in the description, if the person skilled in the art would
appreciate other means that could be used for the same function. For example, “terminal
position detecting means” in a claim might be supported by a single example comprising a
limit switch, it being apparent to the person skilled in the art that, for example, a photoelectric
cell or a strain gauge could be used instead. In general, however, if the entire contents of
the application are such as to convey the impression that a function is to be carried out in a
particular way, with no intimation that alternative means are envisaged, and a claim is
formulated in such a way as to embrace other means, or all means, of performing the
function, then the claim does not comply with the support requirement. Furthermore, it may
not be sufficient if the description merely states in vague terms that other means may be
adopted, if it is not reasonably clear what they might be or how they might be used.
5.57 Characterization of a chemical compound solely by its parameters may be
appropriate in certain cases (see paragraph 5.36). Characterization of a chemical compound
by its parameters is fully supported by the description only when the invention is described
by sufficient relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that the applicant
recognized and described the claimed invention at the time of filing, such as by a description
of partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when
coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, or a
combination of these characteristics.
5.58 Compliance with the sufficiency requirement of Article 5 and the requirement for
support for the claims in the disclosure of Article 6 are determined independently. In some
cases, where the claim is too broad to be supported by the description and drawings, the
disclosure may also be insufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the
claimed invention. Thus there may be non-compliance with both the requirement concerning
the relationship of the claims to the disclosure and the sufficiency requirement. See
paragraph 4.12.
Appendix to Chapter 5

Multiple Dependent Claims

A5.16 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to the treatment of multiple dependent claims. Either of the
alternative guidelines below may be relied upon by an International Authority as appropriate.
A5.16[1] A dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim should refer to
them only alternatively. Multiple dependent claims cannot form a basis for other multiple
dependent claims.
A5.16[2] A dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim may refer to
them either alternatively or cumulatively. Multiple dependent claims may form a basis for
other multiple dependent claims.
Interpretation of Claims
A5.20 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to whether the description can provide special definitions of

Page 48
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

terms that are used in the claims. Either of the alternative guidelines below may be relied
upon by an International Authority as appropriate.
A5.20[1] Where the description provides a special meaning by way of, for example,
defining a term appearing in the claim, that definition should be used for the interpretation of
the claim. The claims should not be limited in their meaning by what is explicitly disclosed in
the description and drawings. The claims should not be limited by the scope of the examples
of the claimed invention contained in the description. Further, if the wording of the claims
needs interpretation, the description and the drawings, and the general knowledge of a
person skilled in the art on the filing date are taken into account.
A5.20[2] If the description gives the words in a claim a special meaning, the examiner
should, so far as possible, require the claim to be amended whereby the meaning is clear
from the wording of the claim alone. The claim should also be read with an attempt to make
technical sense out of it. Such a reading may involve a departure from the strict literal
meaning of the wording of the claims.
Use Claims
A5.21 In some International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities, for
purposes of international search and examination, a “use” claim of the form such as “the use
of substance X as an insecticide” or “substance X when/whenever used as an insecticide”
should be regarded as equivalent to a “process” claim of the form “a process of killing insects
using substance X.” (However, it should be noted that in certain designated/elected States,
“when/whenever used” claims are considered for the purposes of the national law to be
improper process claims which lack clarity and constitute excluded subject matter.) Before
such Authorities, a claim of the form indicated should not be interpreted as directed to the
substance X recognizable (for example, by further additives) as intended for use of an
insecticide. Similarly, a claim for “the use of a transistor in an amplifying circuit” would be
equivalent to a process claim for the process of amplifying, using a circuit containing the
transistor and should not be interpreted as being directed to “an amplifying circuit in which
the transistor is used,” nor to “the process of using the transistor in building such a circuit.”
Product by Process Claims
A5.26 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to the search and examination of product by process claims.
Either of the alternative guidelines below may be relied upon by an International Authority as
appropriate.
A5.26[1] Where a claim defines a product in terms of the process by which the product
is made, the claim should be construed as a claim to the product per se that possesses the
characteristics derived from the manufacturing process stated in the claim. Therefore, the
patentability of a product defined by a product-by-process claim does not depend on its
method of production. A product is not rendered novel merely by the fact that it is produced
by means of a new process. If the product in such a claim is the same as, or obvious from, a
product described in an item of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the product
described in the item of prior art was made by a different process.
A5.26[2] Where a claim defines a product in terms of the process by which the product
is made, the claim relates to, and would be anticipated by, only a product which has been
actually produced by the process.
Conciseness
A5.42 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to whether claims, both individually and in their totality, are
concise. Either of the alternative guidelines below may be relied upon by an International
Authority as appropriate.

Page 49
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

A5.42[1] Claims may be objected to as lacking conciseness when they are unduly
multiplied or duplicative. Claims are unduly multiplied where, in view of the nature and scope
of the invention, an unreasonable number of claims are presented which are repetitious and
multiplied, the net result of which is to confuse rather than to clarify. The claims should not
be unduly multiplied so as to obscure the definition of the claimed invention in a maze of
confusion. However, if the claims differ from one another and there is no difficulty in
understanding the scope of protection, an objection on this basis generally should not be
applied. In addition, claims should differ from one another. If claims are presented in the
same application that are identical or else are so close in content that they both cover the
same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, an objection on the basis of conciseness
may be proper. However, such an objection should not be applied if the change in wording
results even in a small difference in scope between the two claims. Individual claims may be
objected to as lacking conciseness only when they contain such long recitations or
unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby.
A5.42[2] The number of claims must be considered in relation to the nature of the
invention the applicant seeks to protect. Undue repetition of words or a multiplicity of claims
of a trivial nature which render it unduly burdensome to determine the matter for which
protection is sought could be considered as not complying with this requirement. What is or
what is not a reasonable number of claims depends on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. Regard also has to be had to the interests of the relevant public. The
presentation of claims should not obscure the matter for which protection is sought.
Furthermore, the number of alternatives presented within a single claim should not make it
unduly burdensome to determine the subject matter for which protection is sought.

Page 50
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 6
Priority

The Right to Priority

Articles 11, 14; Rule 20
6.01 An international application is accorded as its international filing date the date on
which it satisfies the requirements of Article 11. This date remains unchanged except in the
special circumstances of later-filed drawings as provided in Article 14(2) and/or later-filed
parts of the description, claims and drawings that were missing at the time of original filing
(see Rule 20.5(c), subject to the possibility of incorporation by reference without loss of the
original filing date as provided by Rule 20.6). The international filing date may be the only
effective date of the international application. It will be of importance for fixing the expiration
of certain time limits and for determining the state of the art relevant for the purposes of the
international search and examination.
Article 2(xi)
6.02 However, in many cases, an international application will claim the right of priority
of the date of filing of an earlier application. In this case, it is the priority date (that is, the
filing date of the earlier application) which will be used to calculate certain time limits.
Furthermore, it is the priority date which becomes the effective date for the purposes of the
international examination, that is, the written opinion (of either the International Searching
Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority) and the international
preliminary examination report. Note that the relevant date for the purposes of the
international search is always the international filing date. Paragraph 11.03 defines the
“relevant date” for purposes of the international search while paragraphs 11.04 and 11.05
define the “relevant date” for purposes of the written opinion (whether prepared by the
International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority) and
the international preliminary examination report. See also paragraphs 17.29 and 18.16.
Paragraph 15.01 defines “relevant prior art” for the purposes of the international search while
paragraph 11.01 provides a general definition of prior art.
Article 8(1); Rules 2.4, 4.10, 26bis.2
6.03 For a valid claim to priority, several conditions must be satisfied. First, the earlier
application whose priority is claimed must have been made by the applicant or his
predecessor in title. Next, the earlier application must have been “filed either in or for any
country party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or in or for any
Member of the World Trade Organization that is not party to that Convention.” The words “in
or for” any country or Member mean that the earlier application the priority of which is
claimed may be an earlier national, regional or international application. Furthermore, the
international application must in general have been filed within 12 months from the filing of
the earlier application (the “priority period”). However, a priority claim will not be considered
void only because the international filing date is later than the date on which the priority
period expired, provided that it is within two months from that date (Rule 26bis.2), for
example, in order to take into account the possibility of the applicant being granted
restoration of rights in respect of the priority period either before the receiving Office in the
international phase (Rule 26bis.3) or before the authorities of the designated states
(Rule 49ter.2). The earlier application may be for a patent or for the registration of a utility
model or for an inventor’s certificate. So long as the contents of the earlier application were
sufficient to establish a filing date, it can be used to create a priority date, no matter what the
final disposition of the application may later be; for example, it may subsequently be
withdrawn or held withdrawn. Other conditions to be satisfied for a valid claim of priority are
mentioned in paragraphs 6.04 and 6.11 to 6.17.
Article 8(2)(a)
6.04 Normally, the application the priority of whose filing date is claimed must be the
first application that has been filed for the invention. However, a subsequent application for
the same subject matter as the previous first application filed in or for the same State will be

Page 51
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

considered as the first application for priority purposes if, when this subsequent application
was filed, the first application had been withdrawn, abandoned or refused, without being
open to public inspection and without leaving any rights outstanding, and had not served as a
basis for claiming priority. The examiner will not normally consider this question unless there
is clear evidence of the existence of an earlier application as, for example, in the case of a
United States continuation application. Where it is clear that an earlier application for the
same subject matter exists, and where the priority right is important because of intervening
prior art (see paragraph 6.06), the applicant should be invited to satisfy the examiner that
there were no rights outstanding in the earlier application in respect of the subject matter of
the application being examined.
Article 8(1)
6.05 An international application may claim rights of priority based on more than one
earlier application (“multiple priorities”), even if they originate in different countries. An
element of an international application will be accorded the priority date of the earliest priority
application which discloses it. If, for instance, the international application describes and
claims two embodiments (A and B) of an invention, A being disclosed in a French application
and B in a German application, the priority dates of both the French and German applications
may be claimed for the appropriate parts of the international application; embodiment A will
have the French priority date and embodiment B the German priority date. If an international
application is based on one earlier application disclosing a feature C and a second earlier
application disclosing a feature D, neither disclosing the combination of C and D, a claim to
that combination will be entitled only to the date of filing of the international application itself.
In other words, it is not permitted to make a mosaic of the priority documents. An exception
might arise where one priority document contains a reference to the other and explicitly
states that features from the two documents may be combined in a particular manner.
Determining Priority Dates
6.06 As a general rule, the examiner, in preparing a written opinion or an international
preliminary examination report, should not make any investigation as to the validity of a right
to priority, in which case, Box No. II (“Priority”) of the opinion or report would not normally be
included (see paragraph 17.28). However, the priority right assumes importance if subject
matter relevant with regard to the determination of novelty or inventive step
(non-obviousness) of the claimed invention:
(i) has been published within the meaning of Rule 64.1 on or after the priority
date claimed and before the international filing date;
(ii) forms part of the content of a non-written disclosure within the meaning of
Rule 64.2, that is, a non-written disclosure which occurred before the priority date and which
was indicated in a written disclosure in the period between, and including, the priority date
and the international filing date; or
(iii) forms part of the content of an application or patent within the meaning of
Rule 64.3, that is, an application or patent which was published on or after that date but was
filed earlier than the international filing date or claimed the priority of an earlier application
which was filed prior to the international filing date.
In such cases (that is, cases where the art in question would be relevant if of earlier date),
the examiner must satisfy himself that the priority date(s) claimed may be accorded to the
appropriate parts of the international application he is examining and, where appropriate, will
also consider the validity of any priority date claimed for the application or patent within the
meaning of Rule 64.3 (see also Rule 70.10, last sentence).
6.07 When the examiner needs to consider the question of priority date, he should bear
in mind all the matters which are mentioned in paragraphs 6.03 to 6.05. He should also
remember that, to establish a priority date, it is not necessary that all of the elements of the
invention for which priority is claimed should be found among the claims in the previous

Page 52
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

application. It is sufficient that the documents of the previous application taken as a whole
specifically disclose such elements. The description and any claims or drawings of the
previous application should, therefore, be considered as a whole in deciding this question,
except that account should not be taken of subject matter found solely in that part of the
description referring to prior art, or in an explicit disclaimer.
6.08 The requirement that the disclosure must be specific means that it is not sufficient
if the elements in question are merely implied or referred to in broad and general terms. A
claim to a detailed embodiment of a certain feature would not be entitled to priority on the
basis of a mere general reference to that feature in a priority document. Exact
correspondence is not required, however. It is enough that, on a reasonable assessment,
there is in substance a disclosure of the combination of all the important elements of the
claim.
6.09 The basic test to determine whether a claim is entitled to the date of a priority
document is the same as the test of whether an amendment to an application satisfies the
requirement of Article 34(2)(b). That is to say, for the priority date to be allowed, the subject
matter of the claim must be explicitly or inherently disclosed in the priority document,
including any features implicit to a person skilled in the art. As an example of an implicit
disclosure, a claim to apparatus including “releasable fastening means” would be entitled to
the priority date of a disclosure of that apparatus in which the relevant fastening element
was, say, a nut and bolt, or a spring catch or a toggle-operated latch, provided the general
concept of “releasable fastening” is implicit in the disclosure of such element.
6.10 If the tests set out in paragraphs 6.07 to 6.09 are not satisfied in relation to a
particular earlier application, then the relevant date of the claim will either be the priority date
of the earliest application which satisfies the tests and does provide the required disclosure
or, in the absence of such, will be the international filing date of the international application
itself.
Claiming Priority
Article 11; Rule 4.10
6.11 An applicant who wishes to claim priority must state this on the request
(Form PCT/RO/101) giving particulars of the previous filing, as specified in Rule 4.10 (see
paragraph 6.13), although later correction of priority claims, including the addition or deletion
of entire priority claims, is permitted under Rule 26bis within the time limits discussed in
paragraph 6.16.
Rule 17.1
6.12 When making a claim to priority, the applicant must, in addition to giving the
particulars of the previous filing, either:
(i) submit the priority document to the International Bureau or to the receiving
Office within 16 months of the priority date, unless it was already filed with the receiving
Office together with the international application;
(ii) where the priority document is issued by the receiving Office, request the
receiving Office to prepare and transmit the document to the International Bureau; or
(iii) request the International Bureau before international publication to obtain the
priority document from a digital library where the priority document is available from the
digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions.
Any priority document submitted by the applicant which is received by the International
Bureau after the expiration of that 16-month time limit will nevertheless be considered to
have been received by that Bureau on the last day of the 16-month time limit if it is received
before the date of international publication of the international application. Where the priority
document is issued by the receiving Office the applicant may, instead of submitting the
priority document, request the receiving Office to transmit the priority document to the
International Bureau, in which case the time limit for furnishing the priority document has

Page 53
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

been complied with if the applicant makes the request before the expiration of the 16-month
time limit irrespective of when the priority document reaches the International Bureau.
6.13 The examiner should keep in mind that the form of the declaration (see
paragraph 6.11) claiming the priority of one or more earlier applications under Article 8(1) is
prescribed under Rule 4.10(a). The prescribed form of declaration includes the giving of the
following indications:
(i) the date on which the earlier application was filed;
(ii) the number of the earlier application;
(iii) where the earlier application is a national application, the country party to the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or the Member of the World Trade
Organization that is not party to that Convention in which it was filed;
(iv) where the earlier application is a regional application, the authority entrusted
with the granting of regional patents under the applicable regional patent treaty;
(v) where the earlier application is an international application, the receiving
Office with which it was filed.
6.14 Where the earlier application is a regional application or an international
application, the applicant may also indicate in the priority claim one or more countries party
to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property for which that earlier
application was filed.
6.15 Where the earlier application is a regional application and at least one of the
countries party to the regional patent treaty is neither party to the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property nor a Member of the World Trade Organization, the priority
claim must indicate at least one country party to that Convention or one Member of that
Organization for which that earlier application was filed.
Rule 26bis
6.16 It is clear from the provisions of Rule 26bis that the indications concerning a
priority claim, if not made in the request (Form PCT/RO/101), must be furnished by the
applicant to the International Bureau or to the receiving Office within 16 months of the priority
date or, where correction or addition of a priority claim would cause a change in the priority
date, 16 months from the priority date as so changed, whichever 16-month period expires
first, provided that a notice correcting or adding a priority claim may, in any case, be
submitted until the expiration of four months from the international filing date. The correction
of a priority claim may include the correction or addition of any indication referred to in
Rule 4.10.
Rules 66.7(a), (b), 17.1(c), (d)
6.17 If the examiner needs a copy of the priority document (see paragraph 6.06), the
copy is supplied on request by the International Bureau, unless the International Bureau has
not yet received the priority document (see paragraph 6.12). If the priority document is not in
the language, or one of the languages (if more than one) of the relevant Authority, the
examiner may invite the applicant using Form PCT/IPEA/414 to furnish a translation of the
priority document within two months of the invitation. In the meantime, any written opinion
established while there is still time to furnish the priority document or translation thereof may
proceed as if the priority had been validly claimed (see also paragraphs 11.05, 17.26 and
18.16); however, if the necessary priority document or its translation is not timely furnished,
any further written opinion or the international preliminary examination report may be
established as if the priority had not been claimed. No designated Office may disregard the
priority claim before giving the applicant an opportunity to furnish the priority document within
a time limit which is reasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, no designated Office
may disregard the priority claim if the priority document is available to it from a digital library
in accordance with the Administrative Instructions.

Page 54
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 7
Classification of International Applications

Definition
Rule 43.3
7.01 Classification involves the assigning of one or more classification symbols to a
particular international application, whereby the technical subject of the invention of that
application is identified. Every international application must be classified by the
International Searching Authority according to the International Patent Classification
system (IPC), and this chapter deals only with such classification.
Definitive Classification of the International Application
7.02 The classification of the international application is determined by the International
Searching Authority. Classification symbols are applied to each application according to the
current rules of the IPC. The IPC Guide can be accessed through the WIPO web site at
www.wipo.int.
Multiple Classifications
7.03 If the international application requires more than one classification symbol, then
all such classifications are assigned in accordance with the IPC Guide.
Classification of Disclosure as Filed
7.04 The classification is determined without taking into consideration the probable
content of the international application after any amendment, since this classification should
relate to the disclosure in the published international application, that is, the application as
filed. If, however, the examiner’s understanding of the invention, or of the content of the
application as filed, alters significantly as a result of the search (for example, as a result of
prior art found, or because of the clarification of apparent obscurities), the classification
should be amended accordingly.
Amended Classification in the Case of Later Published International Search Report
7.05 In case the international search report is not available in time for publication with
the international application, and therefore is published separately, and the examiner finds it
necessary to amend the original classification for the reasons given in paragraph 7.04, he
includes the amended classification in the international search report, indicating, by adding
the word “amended,” that it replaces the one published on the international application. Such
amendment of the classification should not be made unless the examiner is quite certain that
it is necessary.
Classification When Scope Is Obscure
7.06 When the scope of the invention is not clear, the classification has to be based on
what appears to be the invention insofar as this can be understood. It may be necessary to
amend the classification, at a later stage, if obscurities are removed by the search, as
discussed in paragraph 7.04.
Lack of Unity of Invention
7.07 All claimed inventions must be fully classified, whether or not there is lack of unity
of invention, since all are disclosed in the published international application. Each invention
claimed is classified as set out in paragraphs 7.02 to 7.06.
Classification of International Applications Excluded from International Search
7.08 If the International Searching Authority finds that the international application
relates to a subject matter which it is not required to search or that a meaningful search
cannot be carried out (see Chapter 9), the classification is nevertheless made, to the extent

Page 55
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

possible, and communicated to the International Bureau for the purposes of publication of the
international application.

Page 56
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 8
Rule 91 – Obvious Mistakes in Documents

Rule 91.1(a)–(e), Rule 91.2

8.01 Mistakes which are due to the fact that something other than that which was
obviously intended were included in the contents of the international application or in a later
submitted paper (for example, linguistic errors, spelling errors) may be rectified if a request
for rectification is submitted within 26 months from the priority date and the necessary criteria
are met. The mistake must be “obvious” in the sense that it is obvious to the competent
authority:
(i) that something else was intended than what appears in the document
concerned; and
(ii) that nothing else could have been intended than the proposed rectification.
8.02 It must be clearly apparent to the competent authority that a mistake was made. No
special attributes are ascribed by Rule 91 to the person in the competent authority making
the finding whether an alleged mistake is obvious and thus rectifiable. It is thus left to the
practice of each authority as to whether, for example, the notional reader should in all cases
be an average person with no special skills or, particularly in cases of mistakes in the
description, claims and drawings, a “person skilled in the art”. The competent authority
makes the determination whether a mistake is rectifiable.
8.03 In the context of Rule 91, the word “authority” may, depending on the circumstances
as set out in the Rule, refer to the receiving Office, the International Bureau, the International
Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority (see
paragraph 8.12).
Rule 91.1(c)
8.04 The test for the rectification of an obvious mistake is a two-fold test:
(i) the recognition that there was indeed a mistake; and
(ii) an assessment as to whether the proposed rectification was the only meaning
which could have been intended.
In other words, it first must be apparent that a mistake has been made. Then it must be clear
that nothing else could have been intended other than the proposed rectification.
Rule 91.1(d)
8.05 Examples of obvious mistakes that are rectifiable include linguistic errors, spelling
errors and grammatical errors, so long as the meaning of the disclosure would not change if
the rectification was made. An obvious mistake is not solely limited to such kinds of
mistakes, but for the correction to the description, claims, or drawings, the finding by the
competent authority as to whether an alleged mistake is obvious must be made only on the
basis of the description, claims and drawings, without any reliance on extrinsic documents.
The contents of priority documents should not be taken into account for the purposes of
considering whether mistakes in the description, claims or drawings are obvious and thus
rectifiable. Mistakes in a chemical or mathematical formula would not generally be rectifiable
unless the correct formula was common knowledge.
Rule 91.1(e)
8.06 In the case of a mistake:
(i) in the request part of the international application or a correction thereof; or
(ii) in a document other than the description, claims or drawings, or in a correction
thereof, or in an amendment under Article 19 or 34;

Page 57
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the finding of the competent authority takes into account only the contents of the international
application itself and, where applicable, the correction concerned, or in said document,
together with any other document submitted with the request, correction or document, as the
case may be, any priority document in respect of the international application that is available
to the authority in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, and any other document
contained in the competent authority’s international application file at the applicable date
under paragraph 8.07.
Rule 91.1 (f)
8.07 The applicable date as at which it must be determined whether a request for
rectification of an obvious mistake should be approved is:
(i) where the alleged mistake is in a part of the international application as filed
(including the request – see Article 3(2)): the international filing date;
(ii) where the alleged mistake is in a document other than the international
application as filed, including a mistake in a correction or an amendment of the international
application: the date on which the document containing the alleged mistake was received.
Where the alleged mistake is in a part of the international application as filed, the two-part
rectification test discussed in the paragraph 8.04 must be applied as at the international filing
date. Knowledge that came into being after the international filing date may not be used to
rectify such a mistake. Where the alleged mistake is in another document, the two-part test
must be applied as at the date on which the document was filed. Knowledge that came into
being after that date may not be relied upon.
Mistakes that Cannot Be Rectified Under Rule 91
8.08 Under Rule 91.1(g), a mistake shall not be rectified if:
Rule 91.1(g)(i)

(i) the mistake lies in the omission of one or more entire elements of the
international application referred to in Article 3(2) (request, description, claims, drawings, or
abstract) or one or more entire sheets of the international application;
Rule 91.1(g)(ii)
(ii) the mistake is in the abstract;
Rule 91.1(g)(iii)
(iii) the mistake is in an amendment under Article 19, unless the International
Preliminary Examining Authority is competent to authorize the rectification because a
demand for international preliminary examination has been made and has not been
withdrawn and the date on which international preliminary examination is to start in
accordance with Rule 69.1 has passed; or
Rule 91.1(g)(iv)
(iv) the mistake is in a priority claim or in a notice correcting or adding a priority
claim under Rule 26bis.1(a), where the rectification of the mistake would cause a change in
the priority date.
Missing Elements or Sheets
8.09 However, it is noted that provisions for providing a missing element or sheet to the
receiving Office are provided in Rules 20.3 to 20.8. An applicant may, under Rule 38.3,
propose modifications to the abstract established by the International Searching Authority.
Changes to the priority claim, other than a change in the priority date, may be made under
either Rule 91 or Rule 26bis.1(a).

Page 58
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Correction of Priority Claims

Rule 26bis.2(e)
8.10 Corrections or additions of priority claims that would affect the priority date may only
be effected in accordance with Rule 26bis. However, where the applicant wishes to correct
or add a priority claim but the time limit under Rule 26bis.1 has expired, the applicant may
request the International Bureau to publish information concerning the matter. Any such
request must be made prior to the expiration of 30 months from the priority date and is
subject to the payment of a special fee.
Transmittal to Another Authority of a Request for Rectification
Rule 91.1(b)
8.11 The following authorities are competent to authorize rectifications in the international
application and associated papers:
(i) if the mistake is in the request part of the international application or in a
correction thereof: the receiving Office;
(ii) if the mistake is in the description, claims or drawings or in a correction
thereof: the International Searching Authority, unless the International Preliminary
Examining Authority is competent under item (iii);
(iii) if the mistake is in the description, claims, drawings or in a correction thereof,
or in an amendment under Article 19 or 34, where a demand for international preliminary
examination has been made and has not been withdrawn and the date on which the
international preliminary examination is to start in accordance with Rule 69.1 has passed:
the International Preliminary Examining Authority;
(iv) in the case of a mistake in a document not referred to in items (i) to (iii)
submitted to the receiving Office, the International Searching Authority, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority or the International Bureau, other than a mistake in the
abstract or in an amendment under Article 19: that Office, Authority or Bureau, as the case
may be.
8.12 If an International Authority receives a request for rectification of an obvious mistake
in the request (where that International Authority is not also the receiving Office) or where it
receives any other paper for which it is not the authority competent to authorize the
rectification, it transmits that request together with any proposed replacement sheet to the
appropriate authority, as listed above, and informs the applicant accordingly. It may, instead
of transmitting the request, inform the applicant that the request should be sent to the
authority competent to rectify the mistake. For the language(s) in which a request for
rectification must be submitted, see Rule 12.2(b).
Invitation to the Applicant to Request Rectification
Rule 91.1(h)
8.13 If an International Authority discovers what appears to be an obvious mistake in the
international application or any other paper submitted by the applicant, it may (optionally
using Form PCT/ISA/216 or PCT/IPEA/411, as applicable) invite the applicant to submit a
request for rectification to the authority competent to authorize the rectification (Rule 91.1(b)
and (h)). Although Rule 91.1(h) allows the International Authorities to invite rectifications, it is
not expected that such invitations will be issued since any mistake which can be rectified
under Rule 91 will not be an impediment to establishing the search report and should not
affect the substance of any written opinion or international preliminary examination report.
Submission and Processing of a Request for Rectification
Rule 91.2
8.14 A request for rectification must be submitted to the competent authority within 26
months from the priority date. A request for rectification must specify the mistake to be

Page 59
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

rectified and the proposed rectification, and may, at the option of the applicant, contain a
brief explanation.
Rule 91.3; Section 511
8.15 Where a request for rectification is submitted to the International Searching Authority
and that Authority is competent to authorize the rectification, the Authority considers whether
the mistake is rectifiable under Rule 91.1, marks the documents in accordance with
Section 511 and completes Form PCT/ISA/217. The International Searching Authority
forwards the request for rectification and Form PCT/ISA/217 to the receiving Office, the
International Bureau and the applicant.
Rule 91.1
8.16 During the international preliminary examination procedure, a request for rectification
of an obvious mistake in the international application may be made by the applicant of his
own volition. In addition, the examiner, upon study of the international application (other than
the request) and any other papers submitted by the applicant, might also note obvious
mistakes.
Rule 91.3; Section 607
8.17 Where a rectification of an obvious mistake is authorized or refused by the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, the Authority promptly notifies the applicant of
the authorization or refusal using Form PCT/IPEA/412 and, in the case of refusal, of the
reasons therefor. The International Preliminary Examining Authority marks the request as
set forth in Section 607 and sends a copy of the request for rectification and the
Form PCT/IPEA/412 to the International Bureau and the applicant.
Authorization and Effect of Rectifications
Rule 43.6bis
8.18 An authorized rectification of an obvious mistake under Rule 91.1 must, be taken into
account by the International Searching Authority for the purpose of the international search
(including the preparation of both the international search report and the written opinion of
the International Searching Authority) unless the rectification is authorized by, or notified to
International Searching Authority after it has begun to draw up the international search report.
The international search report indicates that the rectification has been taken into account,
subject to paragraph 8.19.
Rule 43.6bis(b), Section 413
8.19 The international search report, if possible, indicates whether the rectification of an
obvious mistake has been taken into account in the situation where the processing or
examination of the international application has already started prior to the date on which that
Office is notified under Rule 91.3(a) of the authorization of the rectification by the competent
authority. If the report fails to indicate whether the rectification of an obvious mistake was
taken into account, the International Searching Authority notifies the International Bureau
accordingly, and the International Bureau proceeds as provided for in the Administrative
Instructions.
Rule 48.2(a)(vii), Rule 91.3(d)
8.20 Upon the applicant’s request, if the competent authority refuses to authorize a
rectification under Rule 91.1, the International Bureau publishes the request for rectification,
the reasons for the refusal by the authority and any further brief comments that may be
submitted by the applicant, if possible, together with the international application (where the
request is received by the International Bureau before the end of the technical preparations
for publication). Such a request must be submitted within 2 months from the date of the
refusal and is subject to the payment of a special fee.
Rule 48.2(k)
8.21 If a request for publication under Rule 91.3(d) was received by the International
Bureau after completion of technical preparations for the international publication, the
request for rectification of an obvious mistake, any reasons and any comments is promptly

Page 60
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

published after the receipt of such request for publication. Additionally, the front page is
republished.
8.22 If the authorization of a rectification of an obvious mistake was received or given by
the International Bureau before the completion of the technical preparations for international
publication, the international publication includes the rectification.
Rule 48.2(i)
8.23 If the authorization of a rectification of an obvious mistake is received by or, where
applicable, given by the International Bureau after completion of the technical preparations
for the international publication, a statement reflecting all the rectifications is published,
together with the sheets containing the rectifications, or the replacement sheets and the letter
furnished under Rule 91.2. Additionally, the front page is republished.
Effective Date of Rectification
Rule 91.3 (c)
8.24 Where the rectification of an obvious mistake has been authorized, it is effective:
(i) in the case of a mistake in the international application as filed: from the
international filing date;
(ii) in the case of a mistake in a document other than the international application
as filed, including a mistake in a correction or an amendment of the international application:
from the date on which the document was submitted.
Thus, the rectification of an obvious mistake in the international application as filed is
effective from the international filing date (that is, not from the date on which the rectification
is proposed) and the rectification of a mistake in another document is effective from the date
on which the document concerned was submitted (that is, not from the date on which the
rectification was proposed).

Page 61
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART III
EXAMINER CONSIDERATIONS COMMON TO BOTH THE INTERNATIONAL
SEARCHING AUTHORITY AND THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINING
AUTHORITY

Chapter 9
Exclusions from, and Limitations of, International Search and
International Preliminary Examination

Introduction
Articles 17(2), 34(4)
9.01 The aim of the International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities
should be to issue international search reports and international preliminary reports on
patentability that are as complete as possible. Nevertheless there are certain situations in
which no search report is issued, or in which the search report, written opinion or
international preliminary examination report covers only a part of the subject matter that a
report would usually cover. This may be either because the international application includes
subject matter which the Authority is not required to deal with (see paragraphs 9.02 to 9.18
below), or else because the description, claims or drawings fail to meet a requirement, such
as clarity or support of the claims by the description, to such an extent that no meaningful
search can be made of all or some of the claims (see paragraphs 9.19 to 9.39 below). The
term “meaningful search” in Article 17(2)(a)(ii) should be read to include a search that within
reason is complete enough to determine whether the claimed invention complies with the
substantive requirements, that is, the novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability
requirements, and/or the sufficiency, support and clarity requirements of Articles 5 and 6.
Accordingly, a finding of “no meaningful search” should be limited to exceptional situations in
which no search at all is possible for a particular claim, for example, where the description,
the claims, or the drawings are totally unclear. To the extent that the description, the claims,
or the drawings can be sufficiently understood, even though parts of the application are not in
compliance with the prescribed requirements, a search should be performed recognizing that
the non-compliance may have to be taken into account for determining the extent of the
search. See paragraphs 9.19 to 9.30 for further discussion and examples on this issue.
Excluded Subject Matter
Articles 17(2)(a)(i), 34(4)(a)(i); Rules 39, 67
9.02 Rule 39 specifies certain subject matter which an International Searching Authority
is not required to search. Rule 67 sets out an identical list of subject matter, on which an
International Preliminary Examining Authority is not required to perform an international
preliminary examination (and also, in accordance with Rule 43bis.1(b), for which the
International Searching Authority is not required to establish a written opinion concerning
novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability). While the subject matter in these Rules
may be excluded from search or examination, there is no requirement that it be excluded.
Depending on the policy of the Authority, such subject matter may be searched or examined.
Any such subject matter which a particular Authority is prepared to search or examine is set
forth in an Annex to the Agreement between that Authority and the International Bureau.
Accordingly, the subject matter excluded from the international search or international
preliminary examination may vary between the various Authorities.
9.03 Any such restriction to the search, or to the international preliminary examination
should be accompanied by a reasoned explanation in the written opinion or international
preliminary examination report issued by the Authority. If no search is to be carried out the
search examiner will complete Form PCT/ISA/203 (Declaration of Non-Establishment of
International Search Report). As a general principle, a search is to be carried out wherever
practicable.

Page 62
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

9.04 The following paragraphs relate to subjects that may be excluded from
international search or preliminary examination according to Rules 39 and 67. Practices
differ among the Authorities regarding the exclusions issue. Some Authorities use an
approach involving a “practical application” while others use an approach involving a
“technical character.” Each Authority may use the approach that is consistent with its own
practice. Paragraphs 9.05, 9.07 and 9.11 to 9.15 use both terms to accommodate these
alternative practices. For the purposes of these paragraphs, the term “practical application”
should be understood to mean a characteristic that the claimed invention, when viewed as a
whole, has a practical application providing a useful, concrete and tangible result. “Technical
character” should be understood to mean that the claimed invention must relate to a
technical field, must be concerned with a technical problem and must have technical features
in terms of which the matter for which protection is sought can be defined in the claim.
However, it is noted that paragraphs 9.06 and 9.08 to 9.10, below, relate to exclusions that
are not affected by these alternative practices.
Scientific and Mathematical Theories
Rules 39.1(i), 67.1(i)
9.05 The mere presence of scientific or mathematical theories in claims does not
immediately exclude the claims from search or preliminary examination. When viewing the
claims as a whole, if the theories are applied or implemented to produce a practical
application or to have technical character, search and preliminary examination is required
since the result is not purely abstract or intellectual. Scientific theories are a more
generalized form of discoveries. For example, the physical theory of semi-conductivity would
be excluded, whereas new semiconductor devices and processes for manufacturing would
require search and preliminary examination. Mathematical theories are a particular example
of the principle that purely abstract or intellectual methods are excluded. For example, a
shortcut method of division would be excluded but a calculating machine designed to operate
accordingly would require search and preliminary examination.
Plant or Animal Varieties or Essentially Biological Processes for the
Production of Plants and Animals, Other Than Microbiological Processes
Rules 39.1(ii), 67.1(ii)
9.06 While plant and animal varieties may be excluded from search, transgenic plants
and genetically modified non-human animals, as well as methods of making these types of
inventions would be searched and examined. The question whether a process is “essentially
biological” is one of degree, depending on the extent to which there is technical intervention
by man in the process; if such intervention plays a significant part in determining or
controlling the result it is desired to achieve, the process would not be excluded. For
example, a method of selectively breeding horses involving merely selecting for breeding and
bringing together those animals having certain characteristics would be essentially biological.
However, a method of treating a plant characterized by the application of a
growth-stimulating substance or radiation would not be essentially biological since, although
a biological process is involved, the essence of the claimed invention is technical. Similarly,
methods of cloning or genetically manipulating non-human animals are not essentially
biological processes and would be searched and examined. The treatment of soil by
technical means to suppress or promote the growth of plants is also not excluded. The
exclusion referred to above does not apply to microbiological processes or the products
thereof. The term “microbiological process” is to be interpreted as covering not only
industrial processes using microorganisms but also processes for producing microorganisms,
for example, by genetic engineering. The product of a microbiological process may also be
subject to search and preliminary examination (product claim). Propagation of the product of
a microbiological process itself is to be construed as a microbiological process for the
purposes of Rules 39 and 67; consequently, the product can be protected per se as it is a
product obtained by a microbiological process. The term “product of a microbiological
process” covers plasmids and viruses also.

Page 63
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Schemes, Rules or Methods of Doing Business, Performing Purely Mental Acts or Playing
Games
Rules 39.1(iii), 67.1 (iii)
9.07 Schemes, rules or methods of doing business, performing purely mental acts or
playing games are further examples of items of an abstract or intellectual character. Note
that it is not the particular art involved or classification of claimed invention that is
determinative of exclusion, but rather whether the claimed invention is of an abstract
character. Specific guidance where divergent practices exist is set forth in the appendix to
this chapter.
Methods for Treatment of the Human or Animal Body by Surgery or Therapy;
Diagnostic Methods Practiced on the Human or Animal Body
Rules 39.1(iv), 67.1(iv)
9.08 Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy as well
as diagnostic methods practiced on the human or animal body are further subject matter on
which an Authority is not required to carry out international search or preliminary
examination. Search and preliminary examination should, however, be conducted for
surgical, therapeutic or diagnostic instruments or apparatus for use in such methods. Search
and preliminary examination should also be conducted for new products, particularly
substances or compositions for use in these methods of treatment or diagnosis.
9.09 It should be noted that Rules 39.1(iv) and 67.1(iv) exclude only certain treatment
by surgery or therapy or certain diagnostic methods. It follows that other methods of
treatment of live human beings or animals (for example, treatment of a sheep in order to
promote growth, to improve the quality of mutton or to increase the yield of wool) or other
methods of measuring or recording characteristics of the human or animal body are
appropriate for international search and preliminary examination, provided that (as would
probably be the case) such methods are not of essentially biological character (see
paragraph 9.06). For example, an application containing claims directed to the cosmetic
treatment of a human by administration of a chemical product should be searched and
examined. A search or preliminary examination on a cosmetic treatment involving surgery
need not, however, be carried out (see the last sentence of paragraph 9.10).
9.10 A treatment or diagnostic method, to be excluded, must actually be limited to being
carried out on the living human or animal body. A treatment of or diagnostic method
practiced on a dead human or animal body would therefore not be excluded from
international search and preliminary examination by virtue of Rules 39(1)(iv) and 67.1(iv).
Treatment of body tissues or fluids after they have been removed from the human or animal
body, or diagnostic methods applied thereon would not be excluded from the search or
preliminary examination insofar as these tissues or fluids are not returned to the same body.
Thus, the treatment of blood for storage in a blood bank or diagnostic testing of blood
samples is not excluded, whereas a treatment of blood by dialysis with the blood being
returned to the same body could be excluded. Diagnostic methods comprise the carrying out
of an investigation for medical purposes into the state of a human or animal body, so that a
method of measuring the blood pressure of a body or a method of obtaining information
regarding the internal state of a body by passing X-rays through the body could be excluded
from international search or preliminary examination. A treatment by therapy implies the
curing of a disease or malfunction of the body; prophylactic methods, for example,
immunization, are considered to be therapeutic treatments and thus may be excluded.
Surgery is not limited to healing treatments, being more indicative of the nature of the
treatment; methods of cosmetic surgery may thus be excluded from search or preliminary
examination.

Page 64
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Mere Presentations of Information

Rules 39.1(v), 67.1(v)
9.11 Any presentation of information characterized solely by the content of the
information would be excluded under Rules 39 and 67. This applies, whether the claim is
directed to the presentation of the information per se (for example, by acoustical signals,
spoken words, visual displays), to information recorded on a carrier (for example, books
characterized by their subject, gramophone records characterized by the musical piece
recorded, traffic signs characterized by the warning thereon, magnetic computer tapes
characterized by the data or program recorded), or to processes and apparatus for
presenting information (for example, indicators or recorders characterized solely by the
information indicated or recorded). If, however, the presentation of encoded information has
a technical character or both a structural and functional relationship to the information carrier,
process or apparatus, these should be examined as the subject matter relates to the
information carrier or to the process or apparatus for presenting the information. Such
examples would include a measuring device with volumetric markings having both a
structural and functional relationship with a measuring receptacle providing for recalibration
of the device depending on the quantities desired; a gramophone record characterized by a
particular groove form to allow stereo recordings; or a diapositive with a sound track
arranged at the side of it.
9.12 Mere arrangements or compilations of data are generally excluded subject matter
unless the arrangement or manner of presentation has technical character or a practical
application. For example, a mere program listing itself is not capable of execution and
represents merely the expression of the underlying idea rather than the application of that
idea, and would thereby fall within this exclusion. A disembodied data structure that has no
interaction with an underlying program would not require international search and
examination, while a data structure embodied in a tangible medium that has a technical
character or has a practical application should be subject to international search and
examination. Further examples in which such a technical character or practical application
may be present are: a telegraph apparatus or communication system characterized by the
use of a particular code to present the characters (for example, pulse code modulation) and
a measuring instrument designed to produce a particular form of graph for presenting the
measured information. A computer system for searching gene sequences within a particular
library of genetic data (the searching function goes beyond mere presentation of information)
would have a technical character or a practical application as would a computer program
capable of directing the display of three dimensional coordinates of a polypeptide and the
atomic coordinates of a polypeptide Q. A computer readable media having the atomic
coordinates of a polypeptide encoded thereon, however, would not have a technical
character or practical application even though the data structure is embodied in a tangible
medium. The examples below illustrate both excluded and non-excluded subject matter for
arrangements or compilations of data in the field of bioinformatics.
9.13 Example 1: 3-D structural data of a protein per se
Claim 1. A computer model of protein P generated with the atomic coordinates listed
in Fig. 1.
Claim 2. A data array comprising the atomic coordinates of protein P as set forth in
Fig. 1 which, when acted upon by a protein modeling algorithm, yields a
representation of the 3-D structure of protein P.
International search and examination are not required for claims 1 and 2. Both claims are
directed to a disembodied data structure that has no interaction with an underlying program.
9.14 Example 2: In silico screening methods directed to a specific protein
Claim 1. A method of identifying compounds that can bind to protein P, comprising the
steps of:

Page 65
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

applying a 3-dimensional molecular modeling algorithm to the atomic coordinates

of protein P shown in Fig. 1 to determine the spatial coordinates of the binding
pocket of protein P; and
electronically screening the stored spatial coordinates of a set of candidate
compounds against the spatial coordinates of the protein P binding pocket to
identify compounds that can bind to protein P.
Claim 2. A database encoded with data comprising names and structures of
compounds identified by the method of claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a method that has a technical character or practical application.
Accordingly, international search and examination is required.
Claim 2 is directed to a disembodied data structure that has no interaction with an underlying
program. Thus, international search and examination is not required.
Computer Programs, to the Extent That the Authority is not Equipped
to Carry Out Search or Preliminary Examination on Such Programs
Rules 39.1(vi), 67.1(vi)
9.15 Computer programs are excluded subject matter to the extent that the Authority is
not equipped to carry out search or preliminary examination on such programs. It should be
noted at the outset that programs for computers can be expressed in many forms. Normally,
claims that merely recite program code are excluded subject matter. However, to the
extent that a natural language description of any computer-executable program, or a
self-documented code, is included in the description and the claims, the Authority should be
considered “equipped” to carry out a search and preliminary examination based on such a
description subject to the relevant guidelines regarding the conditions as to exclusion. The
Authorities have diverging practices with respect to determinations of exclusions as to
computer programs. Specific guidance where divergent practices exist is set forth in the
appendix to this chapter.
General Considerations in Assessing the Nature of the Subject Matter
Form of Claims
9.16 In considering whether subject matter under Rule 39 or 67 is present, there are
two general points the examiner bears in mind. Firstly, he disregards the form or kind of
claim and concentrates on the content in order to identify the subject matter. The first point
is illustrated by the examples given in paragraph 9.15, which illustrate different ways of
claiming a computer program. Secondly, any exclusion applies only to the extent that the
international application relates to the excluded subject matter. This is illustrated, for
instance, by a gramophone record distinguished solely by the music recorded thereon
whereas if the form of the groove were modified so that the record, when used with an
appropriate pickup mechanism, functioned in a new way (as in the first stereo record), the
claimed subject matter could undergo international search and preliminary examination. For
the application of Rules 39 and 67, the examiner should not apply the relevant criteria more
restrictively than he would in the case of national applications.
Excluded Matter in Only Some Claims
Articles 17(2)(b), 34(4)(b)
9.17 Where the subject matter of only some of the claims is a subject excluded from the
search and preliminary examination, this is indicated in the international search report,
written opinion and the international preliminary examination report. Search and preliminary
examination are, of course, made in respect of the other claims.

Page 66
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Cases of Doubt
9.18 In cases of doubt as to whether subject matter covered by a claim constitutes
excluded subject matter, the Authority carries out the search or preliminary examination to
the extent that this is possible using the available documentation.
Extent of Search and Preliminary Examination in Certain Situations
9.19 There may be exceptional situations where the description, the claims or the
drawings fail to comply with the prescribed requirements to such an extent that a meaningful
search cannot be carried out, that is, no search at all is possible for a particular claim (see
paragraph 9.01). However, in certain situations where the description, the claims, or the
drawings can be sufficiently understood, even though a part or parts of the application are
not in compliance with the prescribed requirements, a search is performed taking into
consideration the non-compliance in determining the extent of the search. In such cases, the
international search report and the written opinion then indicate how the description, claims,
or drawings fail to comply with the prescribed requirements (see paragraphs 16.28, 16.29
and 17.34). In this indication, it is also noted by the International Searching Authority to what
degree that non-compliance with the particular prescribed requirements has been taken into
account for the purposes of determining the extent of the search, and this extent is indicated
as precisely as possible. In general, a search should be carried out to the maximum extent
practical.
Examples Where Search or Preliminary Examination Possible,
with an Indication in the Written Opinion
9.20 Example 1
Claim 1. “Distillate fuel oil boiling in the range 120oC to 500oC which has a wax content
of at least 0.3 weight% at a temperature of 10oC below the Wax Appearance
Temperature, the wax crystals at that temperature having an average particle
size less than 4000 nanometers.”
The description does not disclose any other method of obtaining the desired crystal
size than the addition of certain additives to the fuel oil and there is no common general
knowledge of making fuel oils of this kind available to the person skilled in the art.
A search would first be made for the additive and fuel oils having defined amounts of the
additive disclosed. The field of search would then be extended to all probable areas relevant
to the claimed subject matter, that is, the broad concept of fuel oil compositions having the
desired property. However, the search need not be extended to areas in which it could
reasonably have been determined that there was a low probability of finding the best
reference. If the broad concept of having crystals as small as possible was known in the art,
the written opinion should indicate the claim as not complying with the requirements of
novelty and/or inventive step. The written opinion should also include any observations on
non-prior art grounds (that is, requirements under Articles 5 and 6 such as sufficiency and
support as well as industrial applicability). In this example, the claim would be objected to in
the written opinion on the following non-prior art grounds: (1) it is not supported by the
description and drawings “in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be
carried out by a person skilled in the art” (see paragraph 5.45); and/or (2) it is not fully
supported in the description and drawings thereby showing that the applicant only claims
subject matter which he recognized and described on the filing date (see paragraphs 5.54
and 5.58). The international search report would cite the fields of search, the most relevant
references for prior art purposes, and, where possible, the most relevant references for
non-prior art purposes (see paragraph 16.72 (which indicates that the symbol “T” should be
used for designating documents which are cited to show that the reasoning or the facts
underlying the invention are incorrect), and paragraph 15.66 (directed to the category symbol
to be used for subject matter which may be excluded from the international search)), which in
this example involve a lack of support by the description. The International Searching

Page 67
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Authority should also include in the objection on non-prior art grounds an indication as to
what degree the objection has been taken into account for purposes of determining the
extent of the search, and this extent should be indicated as precisely as possible, for
example, the additive and fuel oils having defined amounts of the additive disclosed and/or
the broad concept of fuel oil compositions having the desired property.
9.21 Example 2: Claim Characterized Solely by the Result to be Achieved
Claim 1: “A process of reacting starting materials in such a way that a sustained
release tablet with improved properties is obtained.”
The description discloses an example of reacting particular materials in a particular
manner to obtain a sustained release tablet having a particular release rate of a
particular bioactive material.
A search would first be made for the particular materials reacting in the particular manner. If
the particular example disclosed could not be found, the search would then be extended.
For instance, the search could be extended to sustained release tablets having the particular
bioactive material. However, the search does not need to be extended to areas in which it
could reasonably have been determined that there was a low probability of finding the best
reference. Aside from any opinion on novelty or inventive step, the written opinion should
indicate any observations on non-prior art grounds (that is, requirements under Articles 5
and 6 such as sufficiency and support, as well as industrial applicability). In this example,
the claim would be objected to in the written opinion on the following non-prior art grounds:
(1) the claim lacks clarity since (a) the claim fails to recite any steps of a process such that
the scope of the invention is not set forth with a reasonable degree of clarity and particularity
(paragraph 5.32), and (b) the phrase “improved properties” is a relative term
(paragraph 5.34); and (2) the claim attempts to define the invention solely by the result to be
achieved (paragraph 5.35). Again, the international search report would cite the fields of
search, the most relevant references for prior art purposes, and the most relevant references
for non-prior art purposes. The International Searching Authority should also include in the
objection on non-prior art grounds an indication as to what degree the objection has been
taken into account for purposes of determining the extent of the search, and this extent
should be indicated as precisely as possible, for example, the particular materials reacted in
the particular manner.
9.22 Example 3: Claim Characterized Solely by Unusual Parameters
Claim 1: “A fat having a nausea index of less than or about 1.0.”
The description discloses a number of fats that purportedly have a nausea index of less
than 1.0 and a number of fats which have a nausea index greater than 1.0. Examples
of fats having a nausea index of less than 1.0 include different mixtures of saturated
and unsaturated fats. Examples of fats having a nausea index greater than 1.0 also
include different mixtures of saturated and unsaturated fats. No other properties, for
example, melting point, of these mixtures of fats are disclosed. The description
discloses determining the nausea index by whipping the fat at a particular speed and
temperature and measuring the viscosity of the whipped mixture at room temperature.
A search should first be made for the examples disclosed in the description as having a
nausea index less than or about 1.0. If one of these examples is found in the prior art, an
indication that the claim lacks novelty over the prior art would be made since the same
material would be expected to have the same properties. Aside from any opinion on novelty
and inventive step, the written opinion should indicate any observations on non-prior art
grounds (that is, requirements under Articles 5 and 6 such as sufficiency and support, as well
as industrial applicability). In this example, the claim would be objected to on the following
non-prior art grounds: (1) the claimed subject matter is not supported by the description and
drawings “in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a
person skilled in the art” over the entire scope of the claim (paragraph 5.45); and/or (2) the

Page 68
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

claimed invention is not fully supported in the description and drawings thereby showing that
the applicant only claims subject matter which he had recognized and described on the filing
date (paragraphs 5.54 and 5.58); and (3) the claimed invention lacks clarity because the
parameters cannot be clearly and reliably determined by indications in the description or by
objective procedures which are recognized in the art (paragraph 5.36). If one of these
examples is not found, the search need not be limited to only the examples simply because a
newly described/discovered parameter is used by the applicant to explain the invention. A
search can usually be performed using other known parameters or chemical or physical
properties that may lead to a conclusion that the newly described/discovered parameter is
necessarily present, that is, inherent. For instance, in this example, perhaps a search using
a parameter such as the extent of saturation could be made. The International Searching
Authority should also include in the objection on non-prior art grounds an indication as to
what degree the objection has been taken into account for purposes of determining the
extent of the search, and this extent should be indicated as precisely as possible, for
example, the examples disclosed in the description and/or other known parameters or
chemical or physical properties that imply the presence of the new parameter.
9.23 Example 4: Chemical Markush-Type Claim Encompassing Many Embodiments
In this example the claims encompass a very large number of possible embodiments
while the description discloses, and provides support for, only a relatively small
proportion of those embodiments (see paragraph 5.48).
In such cases, the search may be directed only towards claimed embodiments that relate to
specifically disclosed compounds, or prepared or tested compositions and a structural
generalization of these. The written opinion should also include observations on Articles 5
and 6 (sufficiency and support) describing specifically how the description provides support
for only a relatively small proportion of the embodiments claimed. The International
Searching Authority should also include in the objection on non-prior art grounds an
indication as to what degree the objection has been taken into account for purposes of
determining the extent of the search, and this extent should be indicated as precisely as
possible, for example the specifically disclosed compounds, or prepared or tested
compositions, and a structural generalization of these.
9.24 Example 5: Chemical Markush-Type Claim with Many Options, Variables, Etc.
In this example, the claim contains so many options, variables, possible permutations
and/or provisos, that the claim is rendered unclear and/or inconcise to the extent that it
is not in compliance with Article 6 and Rule 6 (see paragraph 5.42).
In such cases, the search should be carried out for those parts of the claim that are clear and
concise or to the extent that the claimed invention can be understood. For example, the
search may be directed only towards claimed embodiments that relate to clearly disclosed
compounds, or clearly prepared or tested compositions, and a structural generalization of
these. The written opinion should also include observations on Article 6 (clarity and/or
conciseness) describing specifically how the claims lack clarity and/or conciseness. The
International Searching Authority should also include in the objection on non-prior art
grounds an indication as to what degree the objection has been taken into account for the
purposes of determining the extent of the search, and this extent should be indicated as
precisely as possible, for example the clearly disclosed compounds, or clearly prepared or
tested compositions, and a structural generalization of these.
9.25 Example 6: Multitudinous Claims
An application contains 480 claims, of which 38 are independent. There is no clear
distinction between the independent claims because of overlapping scope. There are
so many claims, and they are drafted in such a way that they are not in compliance
with Article 6 and Rule 6. However, there is a reasonable basis in the description, for

Page 69
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

example from a particular passage, that clearly indicates which subject matter might be
expected to be claimed.
The search should be based on the subject matter that would be expected to be claimed. In
the written opinion, the claims should be objected to on the non-prior art grounds of lack of
compliance with Article 6 and Rule 6. The International Searching Authority should also
include in the objection on non-compliance with Article 6 and Rule 6 an indication to what
degree the objection has been taken into account for the purposes of determining the extent
of the search, and this extent should be indicated as precisely as possible, for example by a
brief written description of the searched subject matter, where possible citing a particular
passage.
Examples of Exceptional Situations Where no Search at All is Possible for All or Some of the
Claims
9.26 These examples relate to exceptional situations where, due to non-compliance of
the application with the prescribed requirements, all or some of the claims cannot be
meaningfully searched at all. This means that for cases where a meaningful search of all or
some of the claims is possible, for example by taking into account a likely amendment to
overcome the non-compliance, then such a search is carried out along the procedural lines
set out in paragraph 9.19 and the examples in paragraphs 9.20 to 9.25.
9.27 When none of the claims can be meaningfully searched at all, since no likely
amendment can be determined to overcome the non-compliance, the International Searching
Authority makes a declaration in accordance with Article 17(2)(a)(ii). When only some of the
claims cannot be meaningfully searched at all, however, an indication is made in the
international search report in accordance with Article 17(2)(b) to this effect whereas the other
claims will be searched as usual.
9.28 Example 1
Claim 1: “My invention is worth a million dollars.”
Claim 1 is the only claim in the application. The description does not provide sufficient
information about the invention to determine the subject matter to which the claim
might reasonably be expected to be directed after it had been amended.
No search at all is possible. A declaration will be made in accordance with
Article 17(2)(a)(ii). In the written opinion, the claim should be objected to on the non-prior art
grounds of lack of compliance with Article 6 and Rule 6. The International Searching
Authority should also include in the objection on non-compliance with Article 6 and Rule 6 an
indication to what degree the objection has been taken into account for the purposes of
determining that no search at all is possible.
9.29 Example 2
Claim 1: “A composition of matter comprising kryptonite.”
The description recites the term “kryptonite”. However, the description fails to define
the purported material in terms of any of the elements of the periodic table. The
description also fails to set forth any of the physical properties of the purported material
such as density, melting point, etc.
No search at all is possible for claim 1.
9.30 Example 3: Multitudinous Claims
An application contains 480 claims, of which 38 are independent. There is no clear
distinction between the independent claims because of overlapping scope. There are
so many claims, and they are drafted in such a way, that they are not in compliance
with Article 6 and Rule 6. There is no reasonable basis in the description or elsewhere,

Page 70
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

for example from a particular passage, that indicates which subject matter would be
expected to be claimed.
No search at all is possible.
Non Prior-Art Issues
9.31 More detailed discussions regarding the extent of the search can be found in
Chapter 5. For searches regarding non-prior art issues, see paragraphs 15.02 and 15.53.
9.32 More detailed discussions of non-prior art concerns including clarity of the claims,
conciseness and number of claims, support in the description, clear and complete disclosure
of the claimed invention, sufficiency commensurate with the claims, and the relationship of
claims to the disclosure can be found in paragraphs 5.31 to 5.58. A more detailed discussion
of new matter can be found in paragraphs 20.20 and 20.21.
Industrial Applicability
9.33 If the opinion regarding industrial applicability is negative, then any prior art used to
establish this should be cited in the search report and the reasoning set forth in the written
opinion. In addition, if applicable, an indication with respect to novelty and inventive step is
appropriate (see paragraph 17.42).
Informal Clarification
Articles 17(2)(a)(ii), (b), 34(4)(a)(ii), (b)
9.34 In the event that the description, claims, or drawings fail to comply with a
requirement, such as clarity or support of the claims by the description, to such an extent that
no meaningful search can be made, the International Searching Authority may, where
appropriate, ask the applicant informally for clarification before declaring that no international
search report will be established. The examiner should keep in mind that without a search
and written opinion of the International Searching Authority for all or part of the claimed
subject matter, the international preliminary examination may be limited accordingly, and that
the international search and written opinion of the International Searching Authority should
be as useful as possible in the event that there is no demand for international preliminary
examination. Similarly, if at the time of the first written opinion of the International Searching
Authority or a written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, no opinion
is possible on the question of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) or industrial
applicability for all or part of the claimed subject matter, the examiner may ask the applicant
informally for clarification. However, this does not mean that the applicant can be invited or
allowed to file amendments before the International Searching Authority. An opinion may not
be possible on the question of novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) or industrial
applicability for all or part of the claimed subject matter because the description or claims of
the international application fail to meet the requirements of Articles 5 and 6 to such an
extent that it is impossible to examine the claimed subject matter as to novelty, inventive step
or industrial applicability. In such a case, the examiner examines the claimed subject matter
to the extent possible and establishes a written opinion that reflects the inadequate support
or other deficiencies for all or part of the claimed subject matter (see paragraph 17.35). The
examiner still makes any objections on non-prior art grounds in the written opinion even after
informal clarification by the applicant, since the claimed subject matter was, and remains,
unclear absent such clarification.
9.35 A need for clarification as referred to in paragraph 9.34 may arise where there are
any kinds of defects in the claims which cause difficulty in determining the scope of the
claims, for example, obscure, inconsistent, vague or ambiguous expressions. These kinds of
defects include cases where the language used in the claims is not clear even after taking
the description and drawings (if any) into account.

Page 71
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Unclear Claims
9.36 When the claimed subject matter taken as a whole includes alternatives, some of
which are clear realizations of the invention, as well as other alternatives, which are unclear
realizations of the invention, the search examiner searches the clear realization of the
invention. With regard to the other, unclear realizations, the examiner determines the subject
of search based on the subject matter which might reasonably be expected to be claimed by
amendment taking into account the contents of the description and drawings and the
common general knowledge in the relevant technical field and conduct the search based on
the determined subject. The written opinion and international preliminary examination report
establish opinions on the novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability of the claims to
the extent that this is possible and explain the reasons why the remainder could not be
properly assessed.
9.37 For example: if the invention relates to a combination of A + B + C + D in which B
is unclear, a search would be performed insofar as the examiner can determine the subject
matter to be searched as indicated in paragraph 9.36. However, if B is totally unclear such
that it is impossible to determine the subject matter that may be reasonably expected to be
claimed, no search would be performed. As another example, if the invention relates to a
combination of (A1 or A2) + (B1 or B2), in which A2 is unclear but can be determined by the
examiner as indicated in paragraph 9.36, then the entirety of the claim would be searched,
including all alternative combinations. However, if A2 is totally unclear such that it is
impossible to determine the subject matter that may reasonably be expected to be claimed,
the alternative combinations (A1 + B1) and (A1 + B2) would still be searched, while the
alternative combinations (A2 +B1) and (A2 + B2) need not be searched.
Perpetual Motion
Article 17(2)(a)
9.38 Where an international application pertains to perpetual motion (perpetuum
mobile), it is not necessarily excluded from searching. The International Searching Authority
should endeavor to search such an application unless it is so unclear that the application of
the principle of Article 17(2)(a) is required.
Sequence Listings
Rule 13ter.1(a), (b); Section 208; AI Annex C
9.39 Another situation where a meaningful search or preliminary examination is not
possible may arise where the international application contains disclosure of one or more
nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences but the International Searching Authority does not
have available to it a copy of the sequence listing in electronic form complying with the
standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions. The International
Searching Authority requests the provision of such a sequence listing as soon as possible,
before the search report and written opinion are established (see paragraphs 15.12 and
15.13 and paragraph 4.15). However if the listing is not provided or is not provided in the
form required by the standard, the Authority makes a meaningful search or preliminary
examination to the extent that this is possible. For example, if a named protein is claimed,
such a protein could be searched by its name rather than by its sequence. The same may
occasionally apply also where a sequence listing is provided in paper (or image file) form
which does not comply with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative
Instructions and the International Searching Authority requires such a paper (or image file)
format for the purposes of the international search.
Declaration of Non-Establishment of International Search Report
Article 17(2)(a)
9.40 Where the subject matter of all claims constitutes a subject excluded from the
search (see paragraphs 9.02 to 9.18) or where no meaningful search is possible for all of
the claimed subject matter (see paragraphs 9.01 and 9.26 to 9.39), a declaration of
non-establishment of the international search report is issued pursuant to Article 17(2)(a)

Page 72
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

on Form PCT/ISA/203, indicating the reasons. Nonetheless, a written opinion is established,

even though, in the absence of a search, it cannot address the questions of novelty and
inventive step and may not be able to address other questions, such as that of industrial
applicability. The detailed reasoning for not addressing those questions may be indicated in
the written opinion by way of a reference to the full explanation in the declaration.
Multiple Dependent Claims
Article 17(2)(b), 34(4)(b); Rule 6.4(a)
9.41 Rule 6.4(a) provides that any dependent claim which refers to more than one other
claim (“multiple dependent claim”) shall refer to such claims in the alternative only and
multiple dependent claims shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim.
Where an international application contains multiple dependent claims drafted in a different
manner and the national law of the Office acting as International Searching Authority does
not allow multiple dependent claims to be drafted in the said different manner, the
International Searching Authority may make an indication under Article 17(2)(b). Such an
indication, however, should only be made if and to the extent to which a meaningful search is
not possible. Such a case is also noted in the written opinion, and it will of course only be
possible to establish a written opinion or international preliminary examination report on
novelty and inventive step to the extent that the claims have in fact been searched.
9.41A It should be noted that an independent claim may also contain a reference to
another claim (see paragraph 5.19). Where an independent claim contains a reference to
more than one other claim and serves as a basis for a multiple dependent claim, the
International Searching Authority may also make an indication under Article 17(2)(b) if the
national law of its Office does not allow multiple dependent claims to be drafted in this
manner. Such an indication, however, should only be made if and to the extent to which a
meaningful search is not possible. In such a case, it is also noted in the written opinion.
9.41B In deciding whether a claim is a multiple dependent claim or not, the examiner
should consider not only the form of the claim itself, but also the claims referred to in the said
claim. Any dependent claim which refers to either a multiple dependent claim or an
independent claim containing a reference to more than one other claim shall be considered
as a multiple dependent claim itself, and as such, shall not serve as a basis for any other
multiple dependent claim.
Supplementary International Search
9.42 The considerations in this chapter apply in general to supplementary international
searches carried out under Rule 45bis in accordance with paragraphs 15.76 to 15.97.
Additional limitations which can be applied by authorities are explained in paragraphs 15.87
and 15.88.
Appendix to Chapter 9

Excluded Subject Matter Regarding Schemes, Rules or Methods of Doing Business,

Performing Purely Mental Acts or Playing Games
A9.07 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to the exclusion as to schemes, rules or methods of doing
business, performing purely mental acts or playing games. Either of the alternative
guidelines below may be relied upon by an International Authority as appropriate.
A9.07[1] The key question as to whether the invention falls within the exclusion is
whether the claimed invention, when viewed as a whole, is of abstract character, or thereby
does not provide a practical application having a useful, concrete and tangible result. For
example, a theory or method of doing business or related to business function claimed in
isolation without any practical application could be excluded from search and examination
while a computer-implemented method or apparatus for performing a business-related
function with a practical application would require search and preliminary examination. In

Page 73
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

addition, a game as an abstract entity defined by its rules could be excluded. However, a
novel apparatus for playing a game would require international search and examination.
A9.07[2] These are items essentially of an abstract or intellectual character. In
particular, a scheme for learning a language, a method for solving cross-word puzzles, a
game (as an abstract entity defined by its rules) or a scheme for organizing a commercial
operation would be excluded from both search and examination. However, if the claimed
subject matter specifies an apparatus or technical process for carrying out at least part of the
scheme, that scheme and the apparatus or process have to be searched and examined as a
whole. In the particular case of a claim specifying computers, computer networks or other
conventional programmable apparatus, or a program therefor, for carrying out at least some
steps of a scheme, it is to be examined as a “computer-related invention” (see
paragraph 9.15).
Excluded Subject Matter Pertaining to Programs for Computers
A9.[15] The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have
divergent practices with regard to the exclusion for programs for computers. Either of the
alternative guidelines below may be relied upon by an International Authority as appropriate.
A9.15[1] The basic considerations here are exactly the same as for the other
exclusions listed in Rule 67, that is, whether the program claimed has a practical application
providing a useful, concrete and tangible result. A mere program listing that describes an
executable code that is not tangibly embodied as a record on a computer-readable carrier
would be excluded subject matter and thereby not subject of international search and
examination. Similarly, an executable program producing only an expression of an idea
(such as a mathematical theory) even if tangibly embodied would also fall within this
exclusion. However, a program containing executable code tangibly embodied on a
computer-readable carrier which when executed has a practical application would not be
excluded and should be searched and examined. In addition, a data-processing operation
can be implemented either by means of a computer program or by means of special circuits,
and the choice may have nothing to do with the inventive concept but be determined purely
by factors of economy or practicality. The technology involved in executing the
data-processing operation should not be dispositive as to the exclusion determination. With
this point in mind, search and preliminary examination in this area should be performed on
any computer program tangibly embodied in a computer-readable carrier providing a
practical application (for example, a computer program product claim). International search
and preliminary examination should not be denied merely on the grounds that a program is
involved in its implementation. This means, for example, that program-controlled machines
and program-controlled manufacturing and control processes should normally be regarded
as subject matter on which an international search and preliminary examination can be
carried out. It follows also that where the claimed subject matter is concerned only with the
program-controlled internal working of a known computer, the subject matter could be
searched and examined if it provides a practical application. As an example, consider the
case of a known data-processing system with a small, fast-working memory and a larger, but
slower, further memory. Suppose that the two memories are organized under program
control in such a way that a process which needs more address space than the capacity of
the fast-working memory can be executed at substantially the same speed as if the process
data were loaded entirely in that fast memory. The effect of the program in virtually
extending the working memory provides a practical application and would, therefore, require
search and preliminary examination. Where search and preliminary examination on such
claims is carried out, then, generally speaking, product, process and use claims should also
be searched and examined. See, however, in this context, paragraphs 5.13 and 5.31.
A9.15[2] The basic considerations here are exactly the same as for the other
exclusions listed in Rule 67, that is, whether the program claimed has technical character. A
program producing only an expression of an idea (such as a mathematical theory) would fall
within this exclusion. On the other hand, a data-processing operation can be implemented

Page 74
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

either by means of a computer program or by means of special circuits, and the choice may
have nothing to do with the inventive concept but be determined purely by factors of
economy or practicality. The technology involved in executing the data-processing operation
should not be the determining factor for exclusion. With this point in mind, search and
preliminary examination in this area should be performed on any computer program having
technical character. International search and preliminary examination should not be denied
merely on the grounds that a program is involved in the implementation. This means, for
example, that program-controlled machines and program-controlled manufacturing and
control processes should normally be regarded as subject matter on which an international
search and preliminary examination can be carried out. It follows also that where the
claimed subject matter is concerned only with the program-controlled internal working of a
known computer, the subject matter could be searched and examined if it provides a
technical effect which goes beyond the normal interaction between a program and a
computer. As an example, consider the case of a known data-processing system with a
small, fast-working memory and a larger, but slower, further memory. Suppose that the two
memories are organized under program control in such a way that a process which needs
more address space than the capacity of the fast-working memory can be executed at
substantially the same speed as if the process data were loaded entirely in that fast memory.
The effect of the program in virtually extending the working memory provides a technical
character and would, therefore, require search and preliminary examination of a claim
relating to the program involved whatever is the form in which it is presented, for example,
product, computer program product, process and use claims. See, however, in this context
paragraphs 5.13 and 5.31.

Page 75
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 10
Unity of Invention

Determination of Unity of Invention

Article 17(3)(a); Rule 13; Section 206
10.01 An international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more
than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only
permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept
(Rule 13.1). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application,
unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed
inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features.
The expression “special technical features” is defined in Rule 13.2 as meaning those
technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a
whole, makes over the prior art. The determination is made on the contents of the claims as
interpreted in light of the description and drawings (if any).
Rule 13.2; AI Annex B, paragraph (b)
10.02 Whether or not any particular technical feature makes a “contribution” over the
prior art, and therefore constitutes a “special technical feature,” is considered with respect to
novelty and inventive step. For example, a document discovered in the international search
shows that there is a presumption of lack of novelty or inventive step in a main claim, so that
there may be no technical relationship left over the prior art among the claimed inventions
involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, leaving two or
more dependent claims without a single general inventive concept.
Rule 13.2
10.03 Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident “a priori,” that is, before
considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent “a posteriori,”
that is, after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to
A + X, A + Y, X + Y can be said to lack unity a priori as there is no subject matter common to
all claims. In the case of independent claims to A + X and A + Y, unity of invention is present
a priori as A is common to both claims. However, if it can be established that A is known or
obvious (see Chapter 13 for guidance on obviousness), there may be lack of unity
a posteriori, since A (be it a single feature or a group of features) is not a technical feature
that defines a contribution over the prior art.
10.04 Although lack of unity of invention should certainly be raised in clear cases, it
should neither be raised nor persisted in on the basis of a narrow, literal or academic
approach. There should be a broad, practical consideration of the degree of
interdependence of the alternatives presented, in relation to the state of the art as revealed
by the international search or, in accordance with Article 33(6), by any additional document
considered to be relevant. If the common matter of the independent claims is well known
and the remaining subject matter of each claim differs from that of the others without there
being any unifying novel inventive concept common to all, then clearly there is lack of unity of
invention. If, on the other hand, there is a single general inventive concept that appears
novel and involves inventive step, then objection of lack of unity does not arise. For
determining the action to be taken by the examiner between these two extremes, rigid rules
cannot be given and each case is considered on its merits, the benefit of any doubt being
given to the applicant.
10.05 From the preceding paragraphs it is clear that the decision with respect to unity of
invention rests with the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary
Examining Authority. However, the Authority should not raise objection of lack of unity of
invention merely because the inventions claimed are classified in separate classification
groups or merely for the purpose of restricting the international search to certain
classification groups.

Page 76
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

AI Annex B, paragraph (c)

10.06 Unity of invention has to be considered in the first place only in relation to the
independent claims in an international application and not the dependent claims. By
“dependent” claim is meant a claim which contains all the features of one or more other
claims and contains a reference, preferably at the beginning, to the other claim or claims and
then states the additional features claimed (Rule 6.4). The examiner should bear in mind
that a claim may also contain a reference to another claim even if it is not a dependent claim
as defined in Rule 6.4. One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different
category (for example, “Apparatus for carrying out the process of Claim 1 ...,” or “Process for
the manufacture of the product of Claim 1 ...”). Similarly, in a situation like the plug and
socket example in paragraph 5.19, a claim to the one part referring to the other cooperating
part, for example, “plug for cooperation with the socket of Claim 1 ...”) is not a dependent
claim.
10.07 If the independent claims avoid the prior art and satisfy the requirement of unity of
invention, no problem of lack of unity arises in respect of any claims that depend on the
independent claims. In particular, it does not matter if a dependent claim itself contains a
further invention. For example, suppose claim 1 claims a turbine rotor blade shaped in a
specified manner, while claim 2 is for a “turbine rotor blade as claimed in claim 1” and
produced from alloy Z. Then no objection under Rule 13 arises either because alloy Z was
new and its composition was not obvious and thus the alloy itself already contains the
essential features of an independent possibly later patentable invention, or because,
although alloy Z was not new, its application in respect of turbine rotor blades was not
obvious, and thus represents an independent invention in conjunction with turbine rotor
blades. As another example, suppose that the main claim defines a process for the
preparation of a product A starting from a product B and the second claim reads: “Process
according to claim 1 characterized by producing B by a reaction using the product C.” In this
case, too, no objection arises under Rule 13.1, whether or not the process for preparation of
B from C is novel and inventive, since claim 2 contains all the features of claim 1. The
subject matter of claim 2 therefore falls within claim 1. Equally, no problem arises in the case
of a genus/ species situation where the genus claim avoids the prior art and satisfies the
requirement of unity of invention. Moreover, no problem arises in the case of a
combination/subcombination situation where the subcombination claim avoids the prior art
and satisfies the requirement of unity of invention and the combination claim includes all the
features of the subcombination.
10.08 If, however, an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question
whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs
to be carefully considered. If there is no link remaining, an objection of lack of unity a
posteriori (that is, arising only after assessment of the prior art) may be raised. Similar
considerations apply in the case of a genus/species or combination/subcombination
situation. This method for determining whether unity of invention exists is intended to be
applied even before the commencement of the international search. Where a search of the
prior art is made, an initial determination of unity of invention, based on the assumption that
the claims avoid the prior art, may be reconsidered on the basis of the results of the search
of the prior art.
10.09 Alternative forms of an invention may be claimed either in a plurality of
independent claims, or in a single claim (but see paragraph 5.18). In the latter case, the
presence of the independent alternatives may not be immediately apparent. In either case,
however, the same criteria are applied in deciding whether or not there is unity of invention,
and lack of unity of invention may then also exist within a single claim. Where the claim
contains distinct embodiments that are not linked by a single general inventive concept, the
objection as to lack of unity of invention is raised. Rule 13.3 does not prevent an Authority
from objecting to alternatives being contained within a single claim on the basis of
considerations such as clarity, the conciseness of claims or the claims fee system applicable
in that Authority.

Page 77
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10.10 Objection of lack of unity of invention does not normally arise if the combination of
a number of individual elements is claimed in a single claim (as opposed to distinct
embodiments as discussed in the paragraph immediately above), even if these elements
seem unrelated when considered individually (see paragraph 15.31).
Illustrations of Particular Situations
AI Annex B, paragraph (d)
10.11 There are three particular situations for which the method for determining unity of
invention contained in Rule 13.2 is explained in greater detail:
(i) combinations of different categories of claims;
(ii) so-called “Markush practice;” and
(iii) intermediate and final products.
Principles for the interpretation of the method contained in Rule 13.2, in the context of each
of those situations are set out below. It is understood that the principles set out below are, in
all instances, interpretations of and not exceptions to the requirements of Rule 13.2.
Examples to assist in understanding the interpretation on the three areas of special concern
referred to in the preceding paragraph are set out below.
Combinations of Different Categories of Claims
AI Annex B, paragraph (e)
10.12 The method for determining unity of invention under Rule 13 is construed as
permitting, in particular, the inclusion of any one of the following combinations of claims of
different categories in the same international application:
(i) in addition to an independent claim for a given product, an independent claim
for a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an independent
claim for a use of the said product, or
(ii) in addition to an independent claim for a given process, an independent claim
for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process, or
(iii) in addition to an independent claim for a given product, an independent claim
for a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product and an independent
claim for an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
A process is specially adapted for the manufacture of a product if it inherently results in the
product and an apparatus or means is specifically designed for carrying out a process if the
contribution over the prior art of the apparatus or means corresponds to the contribution the
process makes over the prior art.
10.13 Thus, a process is considered to be specially adapted for the manufacture of a
product if the claimed process inherently results in the claimed product with the technical
relationship being present between the claimed product and claimed process. The words
“specially adapted” are not intended to imply that the product could not also be manufactured
by a different process.
10.14 Also an apparatus or means is considered “specifically designed for carrying out” a
claimed process if the contribution over the prior art of the apparatus or means corresponds
to the contribution the process makes over the prior art. Consequently, it would not be
sufficient that the apparatus or means is merely capable of being used in carrying out the
claimed process. However, the expression “specifically designed” does not imply that the
apparatus or means could not be used for carrying out another process, nor that the process
could not be carried out using an alternative apparatus or means.
10.15 More extensive combinations than those set forth in paragraph 10.12 should be
looked at carefully to ensure that the requirements of both Rule 13 (unity of invention) and
Article 6 (conciseness of claims) are satisfied. (See paragraph 5.42 regarding conciseness

Page 78
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

of claims.) In particular, while a single set of independent claims according to one of the
subparagraphs of paragraph 10.12 is always permissible, it does not require the International
Authority to accept a plurality of such sets which could arise by combining the provisions of
Rule 13.3 (which provides that the determination of unity of invention be made without regard
to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single
claim), with the provisions set out in paragraph 10.12 (thus resulting in a set under
paragraph 10.12 based on each of a number of independent claims in the same category
under Rule 13.3 (see paragraphs 5.12 to 5.14)). The proliferation of claims arising from a
combined effect of this kind should be accepted only exceptionally. For example,
independent claims are permissible for two related articles such as a transmitter and
receiver; however, it does not follow that, under paragraph 10.12, an applicant may include
also, in the one international application, four additional independent claims: two for a
process for the manufacture of the transmitter and the receiver, respectively, and two for use
of the transmitter and receiver, respectively.
10.16 A single general inventive concept must link the claims in the various categories
and in this connection the wording of paragraph 10.12 should be carefully noted. The link
between product and process in subparagraph (i) is that the latter must be “specially adapted
for the manufacture of” the former. Similarly, in paragraph 10.12, subparagraph (ii), the
apparatus or means claimed must be “specifically designed for” carrying out the process.
Likewise, in subparagraph (iii), the process must be “specially adapted for the manufacture
of)” the product and the apparatus must be “specifically designed for” carrying out the
process. In combinations (i)and (iii), the emphasis is on, and the essence of the invention
should primarily reside in, the product, whereas in combination (ii) the emphasis is on, and
the invention should primarily reside in, the process. (See Examples below.)
“Markush Practice”
AI Annex B, paragraph (f)
10.17 Rule 13.2 also governs the situation involving a single claim that defines
alternatives (chemical or non-chemical), the so-called “Markush practice.” In this special
situation, the requirement of a technical interrelationship and the same or corresponding
special technical features as defined in Rule 13.2, is considered met when the alternatives
are of a similar nature.
(a) When the Markush grouping is for alternatives of chemical compounds, they are
regarded as being of a similar nature where the following criteria are fulfilled:
(A) all alternatives have a common property or activity, and
(B)(1) a common structure is present, that is, a significant structural element is
shared by all of the alternatives, or
(B)(2) in cases where the common structure cannot be the unifying criteria, all
alternatives belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds in the art to
which the invention pertains.
(b) In paragraph (a)(B)(1), above, the words “significant structural element is shared
by all of the alternatives” refer to cases where the compounds share a common chemical
structure which occupies a large portion of their structures, or in case the compounds have in
common only a small portion of their structures, the commonly shared structure constitutes a
structurally distinctive portion in view of existing prior art, and the common structure is
essential to the common property or activity. The structural element may be a single
component or a combination of individual components linked together.
(c) In paragraph (a)(B)(2), above, the words “recognized class of chemical
compounds” mean that there is an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members
of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. In other
words, each member could be substituted one for the other, with the expectation that the
same intended result would be achieved.

Page 79
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(d) The fact that the alternatives of a Markush grouping can be differently classified is
not, taken alone, considered to be justification for a finding of a lack of unity of invention.
(e) When dealing with alternatives, if it can be shown that at least one Markush
alternative is not novel over the prior art, the question of unity of invention should be
reconsidered by the examiner. Reconsideration does not necessarily imply that an objection
of lack of unity will be raised.
(See Examples below.)
Intermediate and Final Products
AI Annex B, paragraph (g)
10.18 Rule 13.2 also governs the situation involving intermediate and final products.
(a) The term “intermediate” is intended to mean intermediate or starting products.
Such products have the ability to be used to produce final products through a physical or
chemical change in which the intermediate loses its identity.
(b) Unity of invention is considered to be present in the context of intermediate and
final products where the following two conditions are fulfilled:
(A) the intermediate and final products have the same essential structural
element, in that:
(1) the basic chemical structures of the intermediate and the final
products are the same, or
(2) the chemical structures of the two products are technically closely
interrelated, the intermediate incorporating an essential structural element into
the final product, and
(B) the intermediate and final products are technically interrelated, this
meaning that the final product is manufactured directly from the intermediate or is
separated from it by a small number of intermediates all containing the same
essential structural element.
(c) Unity of invention may also be considered to be present between intermediate and
final products of which the structures are not known, for example, as between an
intermediate having a known structure and a final product the structure of which is not
known, or as between an intermediate of unknown structure and a final product of unknown
structure. In order to satisfy unity in such cases, there must be sufficient evidence to lead
one to conclude that the intermediate and final products are technically closely interrelated
as, for example, when the intermediate contains the same essential element as the final
product or incorporates an essential element into the final product.
(d) It is possible in a single international application to accept different intermediate
products used in different processes for the preparation of the final product, provided that
they have the same essential structural element.
(e) The intermediate and final products must not be separated, in the process leading
from one to the other, by an intermediate that is not new.
(f) If the same international application claims different intermediates for different
structural parts of the final product, unity is not regarded as being present between the
intermediates.
(g) If the intermediate and final products are families of compounds, each
intermediate compound must correspond to a compound claimed in the family of the final
products. However, some of the final products may have no corresponding compound in the
family of the intermediate products so that the two families need not be absolutely congruent.

Page 80
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

AI Annex B, paragraph (h)

10.19 As long as unity of invention can be recognized applying the above interpretations,
the fact that, besides the ability to be used to produce final products, the intermediates also
exhibit other possible effects or activities should not affect the decision on unity of invention.
Examples Concerning Unity of Invention
10.20 The application of the principles of unity of invention is illustrated by the following
examples for guidance in particular cases.
Claims in Different Categories
10.21 Example 1
Claim 1: A method of manufacturing chemical substance X.
Claim 2: Substance X.
Claim 3: The (method of) use of substance X as an insecticide.
Unity exists between claims 1, 2 and 3. The special technical feature common to all the
claims is substance X. However, if substance X is known in the art, unity would be lacking
because there would not be a special technical feature common to all the claims.
10.22 Example 2
Claim 1: A process of manufacture comprising steps A and B.
Claim 2: Apparatus specifically designed for carrying out step A.
Claim 3: Apparatus specifically designed for carrying out step B.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 2 or between claims 1 and 3. There is no unity between
claims 2 and 3 since there exists no common special technical feature between the two
claims.
10.23 Example 3
Claim 1: A process for painting an article in which the paint contains a new rust
inhibiting substance X including the steps of atomizing the paint using
compressed air, electrostatically charging the atomized paint using a novel
electrode arrangement A and directing the paint to the article.
Claim 2: A paint containing substance X.
Claim 3: An apparatus including electrode arrangement A.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 2 where the common special technical feature is the paint
containing substance X or between claims 1 and 3 where the common special technical
feature is the electrode arrangement A. However, unity is lacking between claims 2 and 3
since there exists no common special technical feature between them.
10.24 Example 4
Claim 1: Use of a family of compounds X as insecticides.
Claim 2: Compound X1 belonging to family X.
Provided X1 has the insecticidal activity and the special technical feature in claim 1 is the
insecticidal use, unity is present.
10.25 Example 5
Claim 1: A process for treating textiles comprising spraying the material with a
particular coating composition under special conditions (for example, as to
temperature, irradiation).
Claim 2: A textile material coated according to the process of claim 1.

Page 81
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Claim 3: A spraying machine for use in the process of claim 1 and characterized by a
new nozzle arrangement providing a better distribution of the composition being
sprayed.
The process according to claim 1 imparts unexpected properties to the product of claim 2.
The special technical feature in claim 1 is the use of special process conditions
corresponding to what is made necessary by the choice of the particular coating. Unity
exists between claims 1 and 2. The spraying machine in claim 3 does not correspond to the
above identified special technical feature. Unity does not exist between claim 3 and
claims 1 and 2.
10.26 Example 6
Claim 1: A fuel burner with tangential fuel inlets into a mixing chamber.
Claim 2: A process for making a fuel burner including the step of forming tangential
fuel inlets into a mixing chamber.
Claim 3: A process for making a fuel burner including casting step A.
Claim 4: An apparatus for carrying out a process for making a fuel burner including
feature X resulting in the formation of tangential fuel inlets.
Claim 5: An apparatus for carrying out a process for making a fuel burner including a
protective housing B.
Claim 6: A process of manufacturing carbon black including the step of tangentially
introducing fuel into a mixing chamber of a fuel burner.
Unity exists between claims 1, 2, 4, and 6. The special technical feature common to all the
claims is the tangential fuel inlets. Claims 3 and 5 lack unity with claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 since
claims 3 and 5 do not include the same or corresponding special technical feature as set
forth in claims 1, 2, 4, and 6. Claims 3 and 5 would also lack unity with one another.
10.27 Example 7
Claim 1: A high corrosion resistant and high strength ferritic stainless steel strip
consisting essentially of, in percent by weight: Ni=2.0-5.0; Cr=15-19; Mo=1-2;
and the balance Fe, having a thickness of between 0.5 and 2.0 mm and a 0.2%
yield strength in excess of 50 kg/mm squared.
Claim 2: A method of producing a high corrosion resistant and high strength ferritic
stainless steel strip consisting essentially of, in percent by weight: Ni=2.0-5.0;
Cr=15-19; Mo=1-2; and the balance Fe, comprising the steps of:
(a) hot rolling to a thickness between 2.0 and 5.0 mm;
(b) annealing the hot rolled strip at 800-1000°C under substantially no
oxidizing conditions;
(c) cold rolling the strip to a thickness of between 0.5 and 2.0 mm; and
(d) final annealing the cold rolled strip at between 1120 and 1200°C for a
period of 2-5 minutes.
Unity exists between product claim 1 and process claim 2. The special technical feature in
the product claim is the 0.2% yield strength in excess of 50 kg/mm squared. The process
steps in claim 2 inherently produce a ferritic stainless steel strip with a 0.2% yield strength in
excess of 50 kg/mm squared. Even if this feature is not apparent from the wording of claim
2, it is clearly disclosed in the description. Therefore said process steps are the special
technical feature which correspond to the limitation in the product claim directed to the same
ferritic stainless steel with the claimed strength characteristics.

Page 82
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Claims in the Same Category

10.28 Example 8
Claim 1: Plug characterized by feature A.
Claim 2: Socket characterized by corresponding feature A.
Feature A is a special technical feature that is included in both claims 1 and 2 and therefore
unity is present.
10.29 Example 9
Claim 1: Transmitter provided with time axis expander for video signals.
Claim 2: Receiver provided with time axis compressor for video signals received.
Claim 3: Transmission equipment for video signals comprising a transmitter provided
with time axis expander for video signals and a receiver provided with time axis
compressor for video signals received.
The special technical features are, in claim 1 the time axis expander, and in claim 2 the time
axis compressor, which are corresponding technical features. Unity exists between claims 1
and 2. Claim 3 includes both special technical features and has unity with claims 1 and 2.
The requirement for unity would still be met in the absence of the combination claim
(claim 3).
10.30 Example 10
Claim 1: Conveyor belt with feature A.
Claim 2: Conveyor belt with feature B.
Claim 3: Conveyor belt with features A + B.
Feature A is a special technical feature and feature B is another unrelated special
technical feature.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 3 or between claims 2 and 3, but not between claims 1
and 2.
10.31 Example 11
Claim 1: Control circuit A for a d.c. motor.
Claim 2: Control circuit B for a d.c. motor.
Claim 3: An apparatus including a d.c. motor with control circuit A.
Claim 4: An apparatus including a d.c. motor with control circuit B.
Control circuit A is a special technical feature and control circuit B is another unrelated
special technical feature.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 3 or between claims 2 and 4, but not between claims 1
and 2 or 3 and 4.
10.32 Example 12
Claim 1: A display with features A + B.
Claim 2: A display according to claim 1 with additional feature C.
Claim 3: A display with features A + B with additional feature D.
Unity exists between claims 1, 2, and 3. The special technical feature common to all the
claims is features A + B.

Page 83
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10.33 Example 13
Claim 1: Filament A for a lamp.
Claim 2: Lamp B having filament A.
Claim 3: Searchlight provided with lamp B having filament A and a swivel arrangement
C.
Unity exists between claims 1, 2, and 3. The special technical feature common to all the
claims is the filament A.
10.34 Example 14
Claim 1: A marking device for marking animals, comprising a disc-shaped element
with a stem extending normally therefrom, the tip of which is designed to be
driven through the skin of the animal to be marked, and a securing disk element
to be fastened to the protruding tip of the stem on the other side of skin.
Claim 2: An apparatus for applying the marking device of claim 1, constructed as a
pneumatically actuated gun for driving the stem of the disc-shaped element
through the skin, and provided with a supporting surface adapted for taking up a
securing disc element, to be placed at the other side of the body portion in
question of the animal to be marked.
The special technical feature in claim 1 is the marking device having a disc-shaped element
with a stem and a securing disc element to be fastened to the tip of the stem. The
corresponding special technical feature in claim 2 is the pneumatically actuated gun for
driving the marking device and having a supporting surface for the securing disc element.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 2.
10.35 Example 15
Claim 1: Compound A.
Claim 2: An insecticide composition comprising compound A and a carrier.
Unity exists between claims 1 and 2. The special technical feature common to all the claims
is compound A.
10.36 Example 16
Claim 1: An insecticide composition comprising compound A (consisting of a1, a2...)
and a carrier.
Claim 2: Compound a1.
All compounds A are not claimed in the product claim 2 for reasons of lack of novelty of
some of them for instance.
There is nevertheless still unity between the subject matter of claims 1 and 2 provided a1 has
the insecticidal activity that is also the special technical feature for compound A in claim 1.
10.37 Example 17
Claim 1: A chair with a lifting mechanism.
Claim 2: A chair with a mechanical screw lifting mechanism.
Claim 3: A chair with a hydraulic lifting mechanism.
Unity exists between claims 1-3. The special technical feature common to all the claims is
the lifting mechanism. However, if any lifting mechanism is known in the art, unity would be
lacking because there would not be a special technical feature common to all the claims.

Page 84
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Markush Practice
10.38 Example 18: Common Structure
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
1
3 R
R
2
N R
4
R

wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, pyridyl, thiazolyl,

triazinyl, alkylthio, alkoxy, and methyl; R2-R4are methyl, benzyl, or phenyl. The
compounds are useful as pharmaceuticals for the purpose of enhancing the
capacity of the blood to absorb oxygen.
In this case the indolyl moiety is the significant structural element that is shared by all of the
alternatives. Since all the claimed compounds are alleged to possess the same utility, unity
is present.
10.39 Example 19: Common Structure:
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
SCH3

R1 N C CH Z

wherein R1 is selected from the group consisting of phenyl, pyridyl, thiazolyl,

triazinyl, alkylthio, alkoxy, and methyl; Z is selected from the group consisting of
oxygen (O), sulfur (S), imino (NH), and methylene (-CH2-).
The compounds are alleged to be useful as pharmaceuticals for relieving lower back
pain.
In this particular case the iminothioether group -N=C-SCH3 linked to a six atom ring is the
significant structural element which is shared by all the alternatives. Thus, since all the
claimed compounds are alleged to possess the same use, unity would be present.
10.40 Example 20: Common Structure
Claim 1: A compound of the formula:
1
XR
N
N C CH Z
S

wherein R1 is methyl or phenyl, X and Z are selected from oxygen (O) and
sulfur (S).
The compounds are useful as pharmaceuticals and contain the 1,3-thiazolyl substituent
which provides greater penetrability of mammalian tissue which makes the compounds
useful as relievers for headaches and as topical anti-inflammatory agents.
All compounds share a common chemical structure, the thiazole ring and the six atom
heterocyclic compound bound to an imino group, which occupy a large portion of their
structure. Thus, since all the claimed compounds are alleged to possess the same use, unity
would be present.

Page 85
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10.41 Example 21: Common Structure

O O O O

X (C C OCH2CH2O )n ( C C OCH2CH2O )m H

NO2
l

1≤ l ≤ 10
200 ≥ n + m ≥ 100

H CH2O CH2O
X: or
All of the above copolymers have in common a thermal degradation resistance
property, due to the reduced number of free COOH radicals by esterification with X of
the end COOH radicals which cause thermal degradation.
The chemical structures of the alternatives are considered to be technically closely
interrelated to one another. A grouping in one claim is therefore allowed.
10.42 Example 22: Common Structure:
O O

X (C C COCH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2 O )n H
100 ≥ n ≥ 50
CH2

X: H CH2O or C CH2O
H

The compound obtained by esterifying the end COOH radical of known

polyhexamethyleneterephthalate with H CH2O- has a thermal degradation resistant
property, due to the reduced number of free COOH radicals which cause thermal
degradation. In contrast, the compound obtained by esterifying the end COOH radical
of known polyhexamethyleneterephthalate with a vinyl compound containing a
CH2 = CH CH2O- moiety serves as a raw material for a setting resin when mixed
with unsaturated monomer and cured (addition reaction).
All esters covered by the claim do not have a property or activity in common. For example,
the product obtained through esterification with the “CH2 = CH” vinyl compound does not
have a thermal degradation resistant property. The grouping in a single application is not
allowed.
10.43 Example 23: No Common Structure
Claim 1: A herbicidal composition consisting essentially of an effective amount of the
mixture of A 2,4-D(2,4-dichloro­phenoxy acetic acid) and B a second herbicide
selected from the group consisting of copper sulfate, sodium chlorate, ammonium
sulfamate, sodium trichloroacetate, dichloropropionic acid, 3-amino-2,5-
dichlorobenzoic acid, diphenamid (an amide), ioxynil (nitrile), dinoseb (phenol),
trifluralin (dinitroaniline), EPTC (thiocarbamate), and simazine (triazine) along
with an inert carrier or diluent.

Page 86
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

The different components under B must be members of a recognized class of compounds.

Consequently in the present case a unity objection would be raised because the members of
B are not recognized as a class of compounds, but, in fact, represent a plurality of classes
which may be identified as follows:
(a) inorganic salts:
copper sulfate
sodium chlorate
ammonium sulfamate
(b) organic salts and carboxylic acids:
sodium trichloroacetate
dichloropropionic acid
3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid
(c) amides:
diphenamid
(d) nitriles:
ioxynil
(e) phenols:
dinoseb
(f) amines:
trifluralin
(g) heterocyclic:
simazine
10.44 Example 24
Claim 1: A pharmaceutical compound of the formula:
A–B–C–D–E
wherein:
A is selected from C1-C10 alkyl or alkenyl or cycloalkyl, substituted or
unsubstituted aryl or C5-C7 heterocycle having 1-3 heteroatoms selected from O
and N;
B is selected from C1-C6 alkyl or alkenyl or alkynyl, amino, sulfoxy, C3-C8
ether or thioether;
C is selected from C5-C8 saturated or unsaturated heterocycle having 1-4
heteroatoms selected from O, S or N or is a substituted or unsubstituted phenyl;
D is selected from B or a C4-C8 carboxylic acid ester or amide; and
E is selected from substituted or unsubstituted phenyl, naphthyl, indolyl,
pyridyl, or oxazolyl.
From the above formula no significant structural element can be readily ascertained and thus
no special technical feature can be determined. Lack of unity exists between all of the
various combinations. When determining the first invention, the content of the dependent
claims may be taken into account. Alternatively the first claimed invention may be
considered to encompass the first mentioned structure for each variable, that is, A is C1 alkyl,

Page 87
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

B is C1 alkyl, C is a C5 saturated heterocycle having one O heteroatom, D is C1 alkyl, and E is

a substituted phenyl.
10.45 Example 25
Claim 1: Catalyst for vapor phase oxidation of hydrocarbons, which consists of (X) or
(X+a).
In this example (X) oxidizes RCH3 into RCH2OH and (X+a) oxidizes RCH3 further into
RCOOH.
Both catalysts share a common component and a common activity as oxidation
catalyst for RCH3. With (X+a) the oxidation is more complete and goes until the
carboxylic acid is formed but the activity still remains the same.
A Markush grouping is acceptable in this case.
Intermediate/Final Product
10.46 Example 26
Claim 1:
R2 R1

N
R3
N

OH (intermediate)

Claim 2:
R2 R1

N R3

N
O R4

O P

X R5
Y (final product)
The chemical structures of the intermediate and final product are technically closely
interrelated. The essential structural element incorporated into the final product is:
R2 R1

N
R3
N

O
Therefore, unity exists between claims 1 and 2.

Page 88
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10.47 Example 27
Claim 1:
N
R1
N

R5 N R2
R3

R4
(I)
Claim 2:
N
R1 O
N
R2
N CH2 C N

H
O O
R5
R3

R4
(II)
(II) is described as an intermediate to make (I). The closure mechanism is one well
known in the art. Though the basic structures of compound (I) (final product) and
compound (II) (intermediate) differ considerably, compound (II) is an open ring
precursor to compound (I). Both compounds share a common essential structural
element that is the linkage comprising the two phenyl rings and the triazole ring. The
chemical structures of the two compounds are therefore considered to be technically
closely interrelated.
The example therefore satisfies the requirement for unity of invention.
10.48 Example 28
Claim 1: Amorphous polymer A (intermediate).
Claim 2: Crystalline polymer A (final product).
In this example a film of the amorphous polymer A is stretched to make it crystalline.
Here unity exists because there is an intermediate final product relation in that amorphous
polymer A is used as a starting product to prepare crystalline polymer A.
For purposes of further illustration, assume that the polymer A in this example is
polyisoprene. Here the intermediate, amorphous polyisoprene, and the final product,
crystalline polyisoprene, have the same chemical structure.

Page 89
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10.49 Example 29
Claim 1: Polymeric compound useful as fiber material identified by the following
general formula:
[repeating unit (X)]

H OCH2CH2 O C C OCH2CH2OH
O O
n
(I)
Claim 2: Compound identified by the following general formula:
(useful as intermediate for polymeric compound I)

H OCH2CH2 O C C OCH2CH2OH
O O
n’
(II)
(primary condensation product)
The two inventions are in an intermediate and final product relationship.
Substance (II) is a raw material for substance (I).
Meanwhile, both compounds share an essential structural element (repeating unit (X)) and
are technically closely interrelated. The intermediate and final products therefore satisfy the
requirements for unity.
10.50 Example 30
Claim 1: Novel compound having structure A (intermediate).
Claim 2: Product prepared by reacting A with a substance X (final product).
(see below for further details)
10.51 Example 31
Claim 1: Reaction product of A and B (intermediate).
Claim 2: Product prepared by reacting the reaction product of A and B with substances
X and Y (final product).
In examples 30 and 31 the chemical structure(s) of the intermediate and/or the final
product is not known. In 30 the structure of the product of claim 2 (the final product) is
not known. In 31 the structures of the products of claim 1 (the intermediate) and claim
2 (the final product) are unknown.
Unity exists if there is evidence that would lead one to conclude that the characteristic of the
final product which is the inventive feature in the case is due to the intermediate. For
example, the purpose for using the intermediates in Examples 30 and 31 is to modify certain
properties of the final product. The evidence may be in the form of test data in the
specification showing the effect of the intermediate on the final product. If no such evidence
exists then there is no unity on the basis of an intermediate-final product relationship.

Page 90
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Biotechnological Inventions
10.52 Example 32: Multiple Structurally and Functionally Unrelated Polynucleotides
Claim 1: An isolated polynucleotide selected from the group consisting of the
nucleotide sequences SEQ ID NOs: 1-10.
(Some Authorities presume that a claimed biological molecule is in isolated form and
therefore do not require the claim to explicitly include the term “isolated” as above.)
The description discloses that the claimed polynucleotides are 500 bp cDNAs obtained
from a human liver cDNA library. The polynucleotides are structurally different and can
be used as probes to obtain full-length DNAs, although there is no description of the
function or biological activity of the corresponding proteins. Furthermore, the
polynucleotides claimed are not homologous to each other.
There is no prior art available. A human liver cDNA library had not been established
before.
The polynucleotides of claim 1 would be regarded as having the same or corresponding
technical feature if the alternatives had a common property or activity, and shared a
significant structural element that is essential to the common property or activity. Some
Offices may regard claim 1 as a Markush grouping.
In this example, the description fails to disclose that all of the polynucleotides
SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 share a common property or activity. While each sequence may serve as
a probe to isolate its own respective full length DNA, due to the lack of homology between
SEQ ID NOs: 1-10, a probe derived from SEQ ID NO: 1 cannot be used to isolate
SEQ ID NOs: 2-10, respectively.
Moreover, since the polynucleotides are not homologous to each other, they fail to share a
common structure i.e., a significant structural element. The sugar-phosphate backbone
cannot be considered a significant structural element, since it is shared by all nucleic acid
molecules. Therefore, the 10 polynucleotide molecules do not share any significant
structural element and cannot be considered as having the same or corresponding technical
feature.
The mere fact that polynucleotide fragments are derived from the same source (human liver)
is not sufficient to meet the criteria for unity of invention. The polynucleotides fail to share a
common property or activity and fail to share a common structure. Since neither of these two
requirements is met, the group of polynucleotide molecules claimed does not meet the
requirement of unity of invention (a priori).
One possible grouping would be:
Inventions 1-10: Polynucleotides having SEQ ID NOs: 1-10.
10.53 Example 33: Multiple Structurally and Functionally Related Polynucleotides
Claim 1: An isolated polynucleotide selected from the group consisting of the
nucleotide sequences SEQ ID NOs: 1-10.
(Some Authorities presume that a claimed biological molecule is in isolated form and
therefore do not require the claim to explicitly include the term “isolated” as above.)
The facts are the same as Example 32 except that the claimed polynucleotides all
share a significant structural element and their corresponding mRNAs are expressed
only in the hepatocytes of patients with disease Y. The corresponding mRNAs are not
expressed in the hepatocytes of healthy individuals.
There is no prior art available. The shared structural element had not been identified
before, nor had any link been established between genes expressing mRNA containing
that structural element and patients afflicted with disease Y.

Page 91
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

The polynucleotides of claim 1 would be regarded as having the same or corresponding

technical feature if the alternatives had a common property or activity, and shared a
significant structural element that is essential to the common property or activity. Some
Offices may regard claim 1 as a Markush grouping.
In this example, the description discloses that SEQ ID NOs:1-10 share a common property,
that is, expression of an mRNA present only in patients afflicted with disease Y. Moreover,
SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 share a significant structural element that is essential to the common
property, i.e., a probe comprising the shared structural element can detect the mRNA of
patients afflicted with disease Y. Since both of these requirements are met, the group of
polynucleotide molecules claimed meets the requirement of unity of invention (a priori).
10.54 Example 34: Functionally Unrelated Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs)
Claim 1: An isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 with a single
polymorphic change at one of the positions as shown below:
Polymorphism Position Change from SEQ ID NO: 1 to:
1 10 G
2 27 A
3 157 C
4 234 T
5 1528 G
6 3498 C
7 13524 T
8 14692 A

(Some Authorities presume that a claimed biological molecule is in isolated form and
therefore do not require the claim to explicitly include the term “isolated” as above.)
According to the description, SEQ ID NO: 1 is 22,930 nucleotides in length. The
SNPs 1-8 are not characterized, that is, no common property or activity has been
disclosed.
SEQ ID NO: 1 has been described in the prior art but no specific function has been
identified.
The polynucleotides of claim 1 would be regarded as having the same or corresponding
technical feature if the alternatives had a common property or activity, and shared a
significant structural element that is essential to the common property or activity. Some
Offices may regard claim 1 as a Markush grouping.
In this example, the description fails to disclose that all of the SNPs 1-8 share a common
property or activity. The fact that all point mutations are within a defined sequence
(SEQ ID NO: 1) is not sufficient to establish unity of invention since SEQ ID NO: 1 has
already been described in the prior art, and no functional relationship exists among the
different SNPs claimed. For this reason, the SNPs of claim 1 lack unity of invention.
One possible grouping would be:
Inventions 1-8: SNPs 1-8.
10.55 Example 35: Molecules Which Share a Common Function not Linked to a
Common Structure
Claim 1: A fusion protein comprising carrier protein X linked to a polypeptide having
SEQ ID NO 1, 2, or 3.
The description discloses that carrier protein X is 1000 amino acids in length and
functions to increase the stability of the fusion proteins in the blood stream. SEQ ID
NOs: 1, 2, and 3 are small epitopes (10-20 residues in length) isolated from different

Page 92
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

antigenic regions of E.coli. SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3 do not share any significant
common structure.
Both the structure of protein X and its function as a carrier protein are known in the
prior art. Fusion proteins that generate an antigenic response to E. coli are known in
the prior art.
The fusion proteins of claim 1 would be regarded as having the same or corresponding
technical feature if the alternatives had a common property or activity, and shared a
significant structural element that is essential to the common property or activity. Some
Offices may regard claim 1 as a Markush grouping.
In this example, the only common structure shared by the fusion proteins is carrier protein X.
The fusion proteins share a common property, i.e., generation of an antibody response
specific for E. coli. However, immunization with the carrier protein alone does not result in
the common property; SEQ ID NO: 1, 2, or 3 is required for this property.
No special technical feature exists among the three fusion proteins. The fact that all the
fusion proteins have a common property is not sufficient to establish unity of invention
because (1) SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3, which impart the common property, do not share a
significant structural element, (2) the common structure, carrier protein X, does not impart the
common property, and (3) fusion proteins that generate an antigenic response specific for
E. coli are known in the prior art.
One possible grouping would be:
Invention 1: Fusion protein comprising carrier protein X and SEQ ID NO: 1.
Invention 2: Fusion protein comprising carrier protein X and SEQ ID NO: 2.
Invention 3: Fusion protein comprising carrier protein X and SEQ ID NO: 3.
10.56 Example 36: Multiple Nucleic Acid Molecules Which Share Common Structure
and Encode Proteins with Common Property
Claim 1: An isolated nucleic acid selected from SEQ ID NO: 1, 2, or 3.
(Some Authorities presume that a claimed biological molecule is in isolated form and
therefore do not require the claim to explicitly include the term “isolated” as above.)
The description discloses that the three nucleic acids encode dehydrogenases that
include a conserved sequence motif defining the catalytic site and the dehydrogenase
function of these proteins. The three nucleic acids were isolated from three different
sources (mouse, rat, and human). The description clearly shows that these three
nucleic acids are homologous based upon their overall sequence similarity (85-95%
identity) at both the nucleotide and amino acid sequence levels.
The prior art describes a nucleic acid molecule isolated from monkeys, which has high
sequence similarity (e.g., 90%) to SEQ ID NO: 1. The monkey nucleic acid encodes a
dehydrogenase that includes the catalytic site defined by the conserved motif.
The nucleic acids of claim 1 would be regarded as having the same or corresponding
technical feature if the alternatives had a common property or activity, and shared a
significant structural element that is essential to the common property or activity. Some
Offices may regard claim 1 as a Markush grouping.
Rule 13.2 requires that the technical feature shared between the inventions defines a
contribution over the prior art.
A same or corresponding technical feature shared among the claimed nucleic acid molecules
resides in their common property (encoding dehydrogenases) and their shared structural
element that is essential to the common property (the conserved motif). However, a nucleic
acid molecule which encodes a dehydrogenase and contains the shared structural element

Page 93
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

has already been isolated from a different source (monkeys). Thus, the technical feature is
not special because the functional and structural similarity between the claimed molecules
cannot form the contribution that the group of inventions as a whole makes over the prior art.
Therefore, unity of invention is lacking (a posteriori).
On the other hand, if the only prior art available disclosed a nucleic acid molecule encoding a
dehydrogenase that lacked the catalytic site defined by the conserved sequence motif, the
technical feature would be special and SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3 would have unity of
invention.
A possible grouping would be:
Invention 1: Nucleic acid of SEQ ID NO: 1
Invention 2: Nucleic acid of SEQ ID NO: 2
Invention 3: Nucleic acid of SEQ ID NO: 3
10.57 Example 37: DNA Encoding Receptors with Partial Structural Identity and
Asserted Common Property
Claim 1: A polynucleotide encoding a guanosine triphosphate-binding protein coupled
receptor (GPCR) comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group
consisting of the odd-numbered SEQ ID NOs from SEQ ID NO: 1 to
SEQ ID NO: 2069.
The description identifies a conserved sequence of 15 amino acid residues found in
several known GPCR molecules that is asserted to be essential to the GPCR function.
A consensus polynucleotide sequence encoding the conserved amino acid sequence
was generated. A database containing human genome sequences was searched
using the consensus polynucleotide sequence. Using this system, 1035 polynucleotide
sequences were identified, which are asserted to encode GPCR molecules that include
the conserved sequence.
The prior art discloses human GPCR molecules that contain the conserved sequence
of 15 amino acid residues, as well as the polynucleotide sequences that encode the
conserved 15 amino acid sequence.
The common technical feature among the 1035 polynucleotide sequences is the consensus
polynucleotide sequence that encodes the common sequence of 15 amino acid residues.
This technical feature is not special because the consensus polynucleotide sequence was
known and therefore cannot form the contribution that the group of inventions as a whole
makes over the prior art. Consequently, the 1035 different polynucleotides lack unity of
invention (a posteriori).
One possible grouping would be:
Inventions 1-1035: Polynucleotides based on SEQ ID NOs: 1-2069 (odd-numbers)
If the description did not assert, or it was not readily apparent, that the conserved sequence
of 15 amino acid residues was essential to the GPCR function, unity of invention could be
lacking in the absence of any relevant prior art.
On the other hand, given the assertion in the description, in the absence of the prior art in the
example, the groups would have had unity of invention.
10.58 Example 38: Method of Screening and Compounds Identified by the Method
Claim 1: A method to identify compounds that are antagonists of receptor R
comprising the steps of contacting cells expressing on their outer membrane
receptor R with its natural ligand; observing the binding of the ligand; contacting
said cells bound to said ligand with a candidate compound selected from a library
of compounds; and observing any change in the binding of the ligand.

Page 94
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Claim 2: Compound X, having formula 1.

Claim 3: Compound Y, having formula 2.
Claim 4: Compound Z, having formula 3.
Receptor R and its natural ligand are proposed as a drug target. Compounds that
antagonise receptor R are proposed to have physiological effects that may be useful in
therapeutic treatment. The aim is to identify lead compounds as a basis for further
screening and testing of combinatorial libraries. A library is described as providing
many possible structurally different compounds. Examples show that the method of
claim 1 can be used to identify compounds affecting the physiological effect of binding
of the natural ligand to the receptor. Only compounds X, Y and Z were shown to have
such effects, but they do not appear to share a significant structural element. The
description is silent with regard to both the relationship between the structure and
activity of the claimed compounds and the relationship between the structure of
receptor R and the structure of the compounds.
Receptor R, its biological function, and its natural ligand are known in the prior art. No
compounds that function as antagonists of receptor R are known.
The technical feature of method claim 1 resides in the step of observing the effect of the
candidate compounds on ligand binding in a screening assay. Neither the same nor a
corresponding special technical feature is present in any of compounds X, Y, or Z. No
manufacturing relationship exists between the screening method and the claimed
compounds. Further, the screening method is not a method of using claimed compounds X,
Y, and Z. In the absence of any teaching as to the structure required for a compound to act
as a receptor R antagonist, there is no single general concept that links the method to the
claimed compounds. Thus, unity of invention is lacking (a priori).
Compounds X, Y, and Z would be regarded as having the same or corresponding technical
feature if they had a common property or activity, and shared a significant structural element
that is essential to the common property or activity. While compounds X, Y, and Z do share
the common property of antagonizing receptor R, there is no teaching as to a shared
significant structural element, and hence, there is no disclosure of the same or corresponding
technical feature.
One possible grouping would be:
Invention 1: Method to identify compounds... (claim 1)
Invention 2: Compound X (claim 2)
Invention 3: Compound Y (claim 3)
Invention 4: Compound Z (claim 4)
10.59 Example 39: Protein and its Encoding DNA
Claim 1: Isolated protein X having SEQ ID NO: 1.
Claim 2: Isolated DNA molecule encoding protein X of claim 1.
(Some Authorities presume that a claimed biological molecule is in isolated form and
therefore do not require the claim to explicitly include the term “isolated” as above.)
The disclosure teaches that protein X is an interleukin-1, a soluble cytokine involved in
the activation of lymphocytes. The disclosure also sets forth a DNA molecule having
SEQ ID NO: 2 that encodes SEQ ID NO: 1.
There is no prior art.
The claimed DNA molecule encodes protein X, and therefore protein X and the DNA
encoding protein X share a corresponding technical feature. Consequently, the claims have
unity of invention (a priori).

Page 95
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Because protein X makes a contribution over the prior art, protein X and the DNA encoding
protein X share a special technical feature.
If an alternative DNA claim was presented that encompassed a DNA molecule that did not
encode protein X, some Authorities might find that the claims did not share the same or
corresponding technical feature and therefore lacked unity. Examples of such a claim follow:
Isolated DNA molecule encoding protein X, or a DNA fragment thereof.
Isolated DNA molecule having SEQ ID NO: 2, or DNA molecules which hybridise to
SEQ ID NO: 2 under stringent conditions.
If prior art existed teaching either protein X or the DNA encoding protein X, some Authorities
might find that the same or corresponding technical feature did not make a contribution over
the prior art, that is, was not a special technical feature, and therefore unity was lacking (a
posteriori).
Process at the International Search Stage
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees
Article 17(3)(a); Rules 16, 40.1, 40.2, 42
10.60 After deciding that lack of unity exists, except in the circumstances described in
paragraphs 10.64 and 10.65, the International Searching Authority informs the applicant of
the lack of unity of invention by a communication, preceding (but see paragraph 10.61 below)
the issuance of the international search report and written opinion of the International
Searching Authority, which contains an invitation to pay additional fees (Form PCT/ISA/206).
This invitation:
(i) specifies the reasons (see paragraph 10.63) for which the international
application is not considered as complying with the requirement of unity of invention;
(ii) identifies the separate inventions and indicates the number of additional search
fees and the amount to be paid; and
(iii) invites the applicant to pay, where applicable, the protest fee (see paragraphs
10.66 to 10.70).
The International Searching Authority cannot consider the application withdrawn for lack of
unity of invention, nor invite the applicant to amend the claims, but informs the applicant that,
if the international search report is to be drawn up in respect of those inventions present
other than the first mentioned, then the additional fees (and the protest fee, where
applicable) must be paid within one month from the date of the invitation. If the applicant
wishes to pay the additional fees under protest and a protest fee is payable (see paragraphs
10.66 to 10.70), the International Searching Authority also invites the applicant to pay any
such fee within one month from the date of the invitation.
10.61 If preferred, the said invitation may be already accompanied by a notification of the
result of a partial international search drawn up for those parts of the international application
which relate to what is to be considered as the “first” invention. The result of the partial
international search will be very useful for the applicant in deciding whether additional search
fees should be paid so that further parts of the international application would be subjected to
the international search. The invention(s) or group(s) of inventions, other than the one first
mentioned in the claims, will be searched, subject to paragraphs 10.64 and 10.65, only if the
applicant pays the additional fees. Thus, whether the lack of unity of invention is directly
evident a priori or becomes apparent a posteriori, the examiner, may proceed in one of two
ways: he may immediately inform the applicant of his finding and invite him to pay additional
search fees and any protest fee, where applicable (with Form PCT/ISA/206) and search or
continue to search the invention first mentioned in the claims (“main invention”); or
alternatively, he may carry out the search on the “main invention” and draw up a partial

Page 96
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

international search report which will be sent together with the invitation to pay additional
search fees and any protest fee, where applicable (with Form PCT/ISA/206).
10.62 Since the applicant is given one month to make these payments before any further
search will be made, the International Searching Authority should endeavor to ensure that
international searches be made as early as possible after the receipt of the search copy so
as to enable compliance with the time limit for establishing the international search report set
by Rule 42. The International Searching Authority finally draws up the international search
report and written opinion on those parts of the international application which relate to
inventions in respect of which the search fee and any additional search fee have been paid.
The international search report (see paragraph 16.32) and written opinion (see
paragraphs 17.38 and 17.39) identify the separate inventions or groups of inventions forming
unity and indicate those parts of the international application for which a search has been
made. If no additional search fee has been paid, the international search report and written
opinion contain only the references relating to the invention first mentioned in the claims.
Rule 40.1
10.63 In the invitation to pay additional fees, the International Searching Authority sets
out a logically presented, technical reasoning containing the basic considerations behind the
finding of lack of unity.
Search of Additional Inventions Without Payment of Fees
10.64 If little or no additional search effort is required, reasons of economy may make it
advisable for the examiner, while making the search for the main invention, to search at the
same time, despite the nonpayment of additional fees, one or more additional inventions in
the classification units consulted for the main invention. The international search for such
additional inventions will then have to be completed in any further classification units which
may be relevant, when the additional search fees have been paid. This situation may occur
when the lack of unity of invention is found either a priori or a posteriori.
10.65 When the examiner finds lack of unity of invention, normally, the applicant is
invited to pay fees for the search of additional inventions. In exceptional circumstances,
however, the examiner may be able to establish both an international search and a written
opinion covering more than one invention with negligible additional work, in particular, when
the inventions are conceptually very close. In those cases, the examiner may decide to
complete the international search and written opinion for the additional invention(s) together
with that for the invention first mentioned. In considering the amount of work involved, the
examiner should take into account the time taken to create the written opinion as well as that
needed to perform the search, since even when the analysis involved as regards the search
is negligible, the opposite may be the case for the written opinion of the International
Searching Authority and therefore justify requesting the additional fees. If it is considered
that the total additional work does not justify requesting additional fees, all results are
included in the international search report without inviting the applicant to pay an additional
search fee in respect of the additional inventions searched, but stating the finding of lack of
unity of invention.
Protest Procedure
Rule 40.2(c), (e)
10.66 The applicant may protest the allegation of lack of unity of invention, or that the
number of required additional fees is excessive and request a refund of the additional fees
paid. If, and to the extent that, the International Searching Authority finds the protest
justified, the fees are refunded. The additional search fees must be paid for any protest to be
considered. The International Searching Authority may require a protest fee to be paid in
order for the protest to be considered (see paragraph 10.69).
Rule 40.2(c)
10.67 The protest is in the form of a reasoned statement accompanying payment of the
additional fee, explaining why the applicant believes that the requirements of unity of

Page 97
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

invention are fulfilled and fully taking into account the reasons indicated in the invitation to
pay additional fees issued by the International Searching Authority.
Rule 40.2(c), (d); Section 403
10.68 The protest is examined by a review body constituted in the framework of the
International Searching Authority, and a decision taken on it. The procedure is determined
by each International Searching Authority, although the review body must not be limited to
the person who made the decision which is the subject of the protest. Some Authorities may
review the protest in two stages, with a review body being convened only if a preliminary
review of the protest reveals that the protest is not entirely justified. To the extent that the
applicant’s protest is found to be justified, the additional fees are totally or partly reimbursed.
At the request of the applicant, the texts of both the protest and the decision on it are notified
to the designated Offices by the International Bureau together with the international search
report (see paragraph 10.70).
Rule 40.2(c), (e)
10.69 Details of the protest fee, if any, charged by the International Searching Authorities
appear in the PCT Applicant’s Guide, Annex D. If the protest fee is not paid within one
month from the date of the invitation to pay additional fees, the protest is considered not to
have been made. The protest fee is refunded to the applicant under Rule 40.2(e) only where
the review body finds that the protest was entirely justified. This means that, where the
protest requests the reimbursement of some but not all of the additional search fees paid and
all of those search fees referred to in the protest are refunded by the review body, a refund of
the protest fee is also due. For example, the applicant pays four additional search fees, but
in the protest only requests the refund of two of these. If both of these fees are refunded,
then the protest was entirely justified and a refund of the protest fee is also due.
Rule 40.2(c); Section 502
10.70 Where the applicant paid additional search fees under protest, he is informed
promptly (using Form PCT/ISA/212) of any decision about the compliance with the
requirement of unity of invention. At the same time the International Searching Authority
transmits to the International Bureau a copy of the protest and of the decision thereon as well
as any request by the applicant to forward the texts of the protest and the decision thereon to
designated Offices.
Process at the International Preliminary Examination Stage
Article 34(3)(a) to (c); Rule 68
10.71 The procedure before the International Preliminary Examining Authority regarding
lack of unity of invention is governed by Article 34(3)(a) to (c) and Rule 68 (see also
Rule 70.13). This procedure is more fully explained in paragraphs 10.74 to 10.82. It should
be noted that in most instances lack of unity of invention will have been noted and reported
upon by the International Searching Authority, which will have drawn up an international
search report and written opinion based on those parts of the international application
relating to the invention, or unified linked group of inventions, first mentioned in the claims
(“main invention”), unless the applicant has paid additional fees.
10.72 If the applicant has not availed himself of the opportunity to have the international
search report issued on at least some of the other inventions, this must be taken as an
indication that the applicant is prepared for the international application to proceed on the
basis that it relates to the invention first mentioned in the claims as originally contained in the
international application as filed.
10.73 However, whether or not the question of unity of invention has been raised by the
International Searching Authority, it may be considered by the examiner during international
preliminary examination. In his consideration, he should take into account all the documents
cited in the international search report and any additional documents considered to be
relevant.

Page 98
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 68.2, 68.3

10.74 Where the examiner finds a lack of unity of invention, a communication may, at the
option of the examiner (see paragraph 10.76), be sent to the applicant, using
Form PCT/IPEA/405, informing him why there is a lack of unity of invention and inviting him
within one month from the date of the invitation, either to restrict the claims or to pay an
additional fee for each additional invention claimed. Where such a communication is sent, at
least one possible restriction, which would avoid the objection of lack of unity of invention, is
indicated by the examiner. In the invitation to pay additional fees, the examiner sets out a
logically presented, technical reasoning containing the basic considerations behind the
finding of lack of unity in accordance with these Guidelines. Where a protest fee is payable if
the applicant wishes to pay the additional fees under protest (see paragraphs 10.78 to
10.82), the International Preliminary Examining Authority also invites the applicant to pay any
such fee within one month from the date of the invitation.
Article 34(3)(c); Rule 68.4, 68.5
10.75 If the applicant does not comply with the invitation (by not paying the additional
fees or by not restricting the claims either sufficiently or at all), the international preliminary
examination report is established on those parts of the international application which relate
to what appears to be the “main invention” and the examiner indicates the relevant facts in
such report. In cases of doubt as to which is the main invention, the invention first mentioned
in the claims is considered the main invention.
Rule 68.1,
10.76 However, there are cases of lack of unity of invention where, compared with the
procedure of inviting the applicant to restrict the claims or to pay additional fees (Rule 68.2),
no or little additional effort is involved in establishing the international preliminary
examination report for the entire international application. Then, reasons of economy may
make it advisable for the examiner to avail himself of the option referred to in Rule 68.1 by
choosing not to invite the applicant to restrict the claims or to pay additional fees. In this
situation, he carries out his preliminary examination and establishes the international
preliminary examination report on the entire international application, but indicates, when
establishing the report, his opinion that the requirement of unity of invention is not fulfilled
and the reasons therefore.
Article 34(3)(c)
10.77 If the applicant timely complies with the invitation to pay additional fees even under
protest, or to restrict the claims, the examiner carries out international preliminary
examination on those claimed inventions for which additional fees have been paid or to
which the claims have been restricted. It should be noted that “the national law of any
elected State may provide that, where its national Office finds the invitation of the IPEA
justified, those parts of the international application which do not relate to the main invention
shall, as far as effects in that State are concerned, be considered withdrawn unless a special
fee is paid by the applicant to that Office” (Article 34(3)(c)).
Protest Procedure
Rule 68.3(c)
10.78 The applicant may protest the allegation of lack of unity of invention or that the
number of required additional fees is excessive and request a refund of the additional fees
paid. If, and to the extent that, the International Preliminary Examining Authority finds the
protest justified, the fees are refunded. (The additional examination fees must be paid for
any protest to be considered.) The International Preliminary Examining Authority may
require a protest fee to be paid in order for the protest to be considered (see
paragraph 10.81).
Rule 68.3(c)
10.79 The protest is in the form of a reasoned statement accompanying payment of the
additional fee, explaining why the applicant believes that the requirements of unity of

Page 99
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

invention are fulfilled and fully taking into account the reasons indicated in the invitation to
pay additional fees issued by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Rule 68.3(c), (d); Section 403
10.80 The protest is examined by a review body constituted in the framework of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, and a decision taken on it. The procedure is
determined by each International Preliminary Examining Authority, although the review body
must not be limited to the person who made the decision which is the subject of the protest.
Some Authorities may review the protest in two stages, with a review body being convened
only if a preliminary review of the protest reveals that the protest is not entirely justified. To
the extent that the applicant’s protest is found to be justified, the additional fees are totally or
partly reimbursed. At the request of the applicant, the texts of both the protest and the
decision on it are notified to the elected Offices by the International Bureau as an item
accompanying the international preliminary examination report (see paragraph 10.82).
Rule 68.3(e)
10.81 Details of the protest fee, if any, charged by the International Preliminary
Examining Authorities appear in the PCT Applicant’s Guide, Annex E. If, where it is due, the
protest fee is not paid within one month from the date of the invitation to pay, the protest is
considered not to have been made. The protest fee is only refunded to the applicant under
Rule 68.3(e) where the review body finds that the protest was entirely justified (the same
principles are applied in the assessment as to whether the refund is due as are applied at the
stage of international search under Rule 40, see paragraph 10.69).
Rule 68.3(c); Section 603
10.82 Where the applicant paid additional examination fees under protest, he is informed
promptly (using Form PCT/IPEA/420) of any decision about compliance with the requirement
of unity of invention. At the same time the International Preliminary Examining Authority
transmits to the International Bureau a copy of the protest and of the decision thereon as well
as any request by the applicant to forward the texts of the protest and the decision to elected
Offices.
Process at the Supplementary International Search Stage
Rule 45bis.6
10.83 Contrary to the case for the main international search, there is no opportunity to
pay additional fees for search of further inventions at the supplementary international search
stage. Consequently, subject to the possibility of search of additional inventions without
payment of fees where little additional search effort is required (as indicated in paragraphs
10.64 and 10.65 with respect to the main international search), the supplementary
international search report should be established immediately on the main invention only
(see paragraph 10.86 for consideration of what is the main invention).
Rule 45bis.6(a), (b)
10.84 The Authority specified for supplementary search may make its own assessment
as to unity of invention, but it should take into account the opinion of the main International
Searching Authority included in the international search report as well as any protest by the
applicant or decision by the International Searching Authority in relation to such a protest
which is received prior to the start of the supplementary international search.
10.85 If the examiner considers that there is a lack of unity of invention, this should be
explained in Box No. III of the supplementary international search report. If the examiner
agrees with the assessment in the main international search report, this can be reported by
simply referring to the international search report. On the other hand, if the examiner forms a
different point of view, or agrees with a revised view on unity of invention in a decision
relating to a protest (which will usually not appear in the original international search report,
but will only be available later as a separate document), the reasoning should be set out in
full so that it is easily understood by both the applicant and third parties.

Page 100
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rules 45bis.1(d), 45bis.6(a), (f)

10.86 The main invention will normally be the invention first mentioned in the claims, but
the examiner should use appropriate discretion in selecting the invention to be searched
where the first mentioned invention is one for which no search report would be established
(due to lack of clarity, subject matter excluded from the search or for any other reason), or
else where the applicant has requested that the supplementary search should be limited to
one of the inventions other than the first identified by the International Searching Authority
responsible for the main international search (for example, because the first invention has
been shown by the main international search to be so completely anticipated that it is clear
that no patent could be granted for that invention).
Review of Opinion
10.87 The normal protest procedure (see paragraphs 10.66 to 10.70) does not apply to
requests for supplementary international search. However, the applicant may, within one
month of the date of notification of the supplementary international search report, request the
Authority to review the examiner’s opinion on unity of invention. This request may be subject
to a review fee. The results of the review are promptly notified to the applicant using
Form PCT/SISA/503. The same form can be used to indicate that the request for review is
considered not to have been made because the review fee has not been paid within 1 month
from the date on which the examiner’s opinion was notified to the applicant.
10.88 If the examiner’s opinion is found to be at least partly unjustified, the Authority
should issue a revised supplementary international search report, stating the revised view on
unity of invention and, where appropriate, including the search results for all claims which
should have been included. If the opinion was entirely unjustified, the applicant should also
have any review fee refunded.

Page 101
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 11
Prior Art

Prior Art Generally

Article 33(2); Rule 33.1
11.01 The prior art for the purposes of assessing the novelty (see Chapter 12) and
inventive step (whether or not the invention is obvious; see Chapter 13) of an invention is
defined as “everything made available to the public anywhere in the world by means of
written disclosure (including drawings and other illustrations)” before the “relevant date.” The
scope of this definition should be noted. There are no restrictions whatsoever as to the
geographical location where, or the language or manner (including written disclosure posted
on the Internet or an on-line database) in which, the relevant information contained in the
written disclosure was made available to the public. There are no restrictions as to the age
of the prior art document (whether it is 100 years old or was published one day prior to the
“relevant date”) so long as the document was made available to the public before the
“relevant date.” If the applicant makes an admission, the subject matter mentioned in the
admission (for example, a figure in an international application labeled as “prior art”) may
constitute prior art. The presumption that the admission constitutes prior art may be rebutted
by the applicant.
Date of Disclosure
Rules 33.1, 43bis.1, 64.1
11.02 It should be noted that the definition of relevant prior art for purposes of
international search report is different from the definition of relevant prior art for other
purposes, including the written opinion established by the International Searching Authority
because “relevant date” is defined differently for international search report purposes and for
written opinion and international preliminary examination purposes.
Relevant Date for International Search Report Purposes
11.03 Rule 33.1 makes it clear that potentially relevant disclosures should be included in
the international search report “provided that the making available to the public occurred prior
to the international filing date.” Rule 33.1 defines “relevant date” as the international filing
date of the international application. This ensures that the international search report
provides information which will be complete even if national authorities disagree with the
examiner’s opinion on the validity of the priority claim.
Relevant Date for Written Opinion and International Preliminary Examination Purposes
Rule 2.4(a)
11.04 For the purposes of the written opinion and international preliminary examination,
Rule 64.1 defines the relevant date as:
(i) subject to items (ii) and (iii), the international filing date of the international
application under international preliminary examination (or, in conjunction with
Rule 43bis.1(b), for which a written opinion is being established by the International
Searching Authority); or
(ii) where the international application claims the priority of an earlier application
and has an international filing date which is within the priority period (12 months from the
filing date), the filing date of such earlier application, unless the International Authority
considers that the priority claim is not valid;
(iii) where the international application claims the priority of an earlier application
and has an international filing date which is later than the date on which the priority period
expired but within the period of two months from that date, the filing date of such earlier
application, unless the International Authority considers that the priority claim is not valid for
reasons other than the fact that the international application has an international filing date
which is later than the date on which the priority period expired.

Page 102
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

11.05 Clearly, when a potentially relevant document has been published between a
claimed priority date of the application and its international filing date, the examiner is
required to consider whether the claimed priority date is valid for the purposes of determining
the “relevant date” of the claims in the international application. Note: If there is time left for
the applicant to perfect, correct or add a priority claim but there is insufficient time for the
examiner to make a proper determination as to whether the priority claim is valid, due to the
need to issue a timely written opinion by the International Searching Authority, the “relevant
date” for the purposes of the written opinion will be based on the claimed priority date. (See
paragraphs 6.17 and 17.29(b)).
Documents Casting Doubt on Priority Claim Made in the International Application
11.06 Documents showing that a priority claim in the international application might not
be justified (for example, an earlier application or patent resulting therefrom, by the same
applicant, indicating that the application from which priority is claimed may not be the first
application for the invention concerned) should be mentioned in the international search
report and explained in the relevant portion of the written opinion. No special search is
normally made by the International Searching Authority to determine whether the priority
claim made in the international application is justified, except when there is a special reason
to do so, for example, when the priority application is a “continuation-in-part” of an earlier
application from which no priority is claimed; also sometimes the fact that the country of
residence of the applicant is different from the country of the priority application may be an
indication of possible lack of first filing, justifying a certain extension of the international
search.
Documents Not Within the Prior Art Which May Nevertheless Be Relevant
Later Published Patent Applications (for Purposes of the International Search Report)
Rule 33.1(c)
11.07 Furthermore, the international search report includes published patent applications
or patents whose publication date is the same as, or later than, but whose filing date, or,
where applicable, claimed priority date, is earlier than the international filing date of the
international application searched, and which would constitute relevant prior art for the
purposes of Article 15(2) had they been published prior to the international filing date.
Later Published Patent Applications (for Purposes of International Preliminary Examination)
Rule 64.3
11.08 These earlier filed but later published patent applications or patents are not
considered part of the prior art for the purpose of international preliminary examination as to
novelty and inventive step. Nevertheless, the written opinion of the International Searching
Authority and the preliminary examination report must draw attention to such published
applications or patents in the manner provided for in Rule 70.10 (see paragraph 17.45) since
they may be relevant to the determination of novelty and inventive step by designated or
elected Offices.
11.09 Rule 70.10 provides that any published application or any patent referred to in the
international preliminary examination report by virtue of Rule 64.3 is mentioned as such and
is accompanied by an indication of its date of publication, of its filing date, and its claimed
priority date (if any). In respect of the priority date of any such document, the report may
indicate that, in the opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, such date
has not been validly claimed.
Copending Applications, Including Those Filed on the Same Date
11.10 The PCT does not deal explicitly with the case of co-pending international
applications of the same date. However, it is an accepted principle in most patent granting
systems that two patents shall not be granted to the same applicant for one invention. It is

Page 103
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

permissible to allow an applicant to proceed with two international applications having the
same description where the claims are quite distinct in scope and directed to different subject
matter. However, in the rare case in which there are two or more international applications
from the same applicant designating the same State or States and the claims of those
applications have the same priority date and relate to the same invention (even though they
may not necessarily claim that invention in identical terms), each conflicting application
should (as long as it has already been published) be cited in the international search report
and identified with a “L” category symbol as raising possible double patenting issues. A
notification, to the applicant alone, is given in the case where his international application
designates a State in which he proceeds with a national application having the same priority
date and relating to the same invention as the said international application, if the examiner
is aware of this situation. However, no such notification should be given where two
applications (international or otherwise) of the same priority date and relating to the same
invention are received from two different applicants.
Documents Relevant to Understanding the Invention
Section 507(e)
11.11 Certain other situations may occur in which a document published on or after the
international filing date is relevant; examples are a later document containing the principle or
theory underlying the invention, which may be useful for a better understanding of the
invention, or a later document showing that the reasoning or the facts underlying the
invention are incorrect. The international search is not extended for this purpose, but
documents of this nature known to the search examiner may be selected for citation in the
international search report. Such documents are cited in the international search report and
their relevance explained in the written opinion.
Form of Disclosure
Availability of Written Disclosures to the Public
Rules 33.1(c), 64.3, 70.10
11.12 A written disclosure, that is, a document, is regarded as made available to the
public if, at the relevant date (see paragraphs 11.02 to 11.05), it was possible for members of
the public to gain access to the content of the document and to acquire possession of the
content of the document, and there was no bar of confidentiality restricting the use or
dissemination of knowledge gained thereby. Whether the absence of an index or a
catalogue of the document constitutes inaccessibility of the content of the document to the
public is determined in accordance with the above principle. Where the document only
provides the month or the year, but not the specific date, which the document was made
available to the public, the content of the document is presumed to have been made
available to the public on the last day of that month or that year, respectively, unless
evidence is provided to prove otherwise.
Disclosure on the Internet
11.13 Prior art disclosure on the Internet or on an on-line database is considered in the
same manner as other forms of written disclosure. Information disclosed on the Internet or
on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the disclosure was
publicly posted. When citing an Internet disclosure (a web page), problems may arise in
establishing the date of publication and whether or not the disclosure has been modified over
time. When establishing the publication date of a web page, it is important to distinguish
between two types of Internet disclosure, viz: those made on the web sites of trusted
publishers and those made on web sites of unknown reliability.
Disclosure Made on the Web Sites of Trusted Publishers
11.14 Examples of these are on-line scientific journals (which make available the
contents of a paper journal on-line, or may be uniquely on-line publications). The web sites
of newspapers, periodicals, television and radio stations will usually fall into this category as

Page 104
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

well. This type of Internet disclosure gives the publication date of the disclosure which, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, should be taken at face value. The examiner should
cite the Internet disclosure in the international search report and use it in the written opinion
of the International Searching Authority and in preliminary examination accordingly. The
onus is on the applicant to prove otherwise.
11.15 It may happen that the publication date is not sufficiently identified to know if it is
published in time to be considered to be state of the art according to Rule 64.1(b) (that is, it is
not clear if the disclosure occurred before or after the valid priority date). This may happen,
for example, where only the month or year of publication is given and this is the same as the
month or year of the valid priority of the international application. In these cases, the
Authority may need to make enquiries with the owner of the web site in order to establish the
publication date to a sufficient degree of accuracy to know if it is relevant state of the art in
accordance with Rule 64.1(b) in the same way as it would act in order to establish a more
accurate publication date for a paper published document.
Disclosure Made on Web Sites of Unknown Reliability
11.16 Examples of such web sites include those belonging to private individuals, private
organizations (for example, clubs), commercial web sites (for example, advertising) etc.
Where such an Internet disclosure is retrieved during the international search and it does not
give any explicit indication of the publication date in the text of the disclosure, the Authority
may consider using those technical means available to it to attempt to reveal the publication
date.
11.17 Such technical means include:
(a) information relating to the publication date embedded in the Internet disclosure
itself (date information is sometimes hidden in the programming used to create the web site,
but is not visible in the web page as it appears in the browser),
(b) indexing dates given to the web page by search engines (these are usually
later than the actual publication date of the disclosure since the search engines usually take
some time to index a new web site) and
(c) information available relating to the web site on commercial Internet archiving
databases (for example, the “Internet Archive Wayback Machine”).
11.18 Where the examiner obtains an electronic document which establishes the
publication date for the Internet disclosure, he should make a print-out of this document,
which must mention both the URL of the relevant Internet disclosure and the date of
publication of that relevant Internet disclosure. The examiner must then cite this print-out in
the international search report as an “L” document and cite the relevant Internet disclosure
according to the relevance of its content (“X”, “Y”, “A”) and according to the date as
established (“X”, “Y”, “A”, “P,X”, “P,Y”, “P,A”, “E”, etc.). Where the examiner is unable to
establish the publication date of the relevant Internet disclosure and it is relevant to the
inventive step and/or novelty of the claimed invention, he should cite it in the international
search report with the category “L” for those claims which it would have affected if it were
published in time and giving it the date it was printed out as the publication date (see
paragraph 16.75(b)).
11.19 Where this type of Internet disclosure does explicitly mention a publication date
and this publication date:
(i) is not contradicted by the information sources mentioned above (in this regard
it should be noted that the indexing date given by a search engine is usually later than the
actual publication date and so where the examiner uncovers an indexing date for an Internet
disclosure which is later than the publication date given in the Internet disclosure itself; this
does not necessarily mean that the Internet disclosure was made available later than it

Page 105
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

claimed, it simply means that it was indexed by that search engine after it was made
available); and
(ii) is accurate enough to establish if the document was published early enough to
be considered relevant according to Rule 33.1(a) and Rule 64.1(b),
then the examiner should trust the date given and give this as the publication date in the
search report and use this publication date in preliminary examination. The onus is on the
applicant to prove otherwise.
11.20 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the examiner should assume that the
content of the Internet disclosure has not changed over time.
Differences Between Patent and Non-Patent Citations
Rule 64.3
11.21 As a general rule, no non-patent document is cited in the international search
report if the date of publication or public availability of the document concerned is clearly the
same as, or later than, the filing date of the international application. However, patent
documents published on or after the filing date of the searched application are cited in the
search report if the filing or priority date of such published application is earlier than the filing
date of the searched application (see paragraph 11.07). Such published patent documents,
although cited in the search report, are not considered as prior art for the purposes of
Article 33(2) and (3), but are mentioned in the preliminary examination report.
Documents Reproducing an Earlier Oral Description
Rule 64.2
11.22 Where an oral description (for example, public lecture) or a prior use or sale (for
example, display at a public exhibition) was publicly available before the relevant date of the
international application but a document, which reproduces the oral description or gives an
account of the prior use or sale, was published on or after the relevant date of the
international application, that document may be cited in the international search report. The
earlier lecture, display or other event is not treated as part of the prior art for purposes of the
opinion on novelty and inventive step under Article 33(2) and (3), but the written opinion and
international preliminary examination report calls attention to such non-written disclosure in
the manner provided for in Rule 70.9.
Difficulty in Establishing Date of a Document
11.23 The international search may uncover a document where there is difficulty in
establishing whether the date of publication or public availability of the document is or is not
the same as, or later than, the filing date of the international application. The International
Searching Authority should try to remove any doubt that may exist. Additional documents
providing evidence in the case of doubt may be cited. Any indication in a document of the
date of its publication should be accepted as correct by the examiner unless proof to the
contrary has been offered, for example, by the International Searching Authority, showing
earlier publication, or by the applicant, showing later publication. It may sometimes be
possible to establish the precise date of publication of a document, for example by the date
of receipt in a library to which the public has access or by relying on sources such as the
“Internet Archive Wayback Machine” to establish dates of web sites. If the applicant presents
sound reasons for doubting that the document forms part of the prior art in relation to his
international application and any further investigation does not produce evidence sufficient to
remove that doubt, the examiner should not pursue the matter further.
Relevant Date in Relation to Individual Claims or Parts of Claims
Rule 64.1(b)
11.24 It should be noted that the “relevant date,” for the purpose of considering prior art,
is defined in Rule 64.1(b) as meaning the international filing date or, where the international
application contains a valid claim to priority, that date of priority (see also paragraphs 6.03

Page 106
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

and 6.04). It should be remembered also that different claims, or different alternatives
claimed in one claim, may have different relevant dates.
11.25 The questions of novelty and inventive step must be considered against each
claim (or part of a claim where a claim specifies a number of alternatives) and the prior art in
relation to one claim, or to one part of a claim, may include matter which cannot be cited
against another claim, or part of a claim, because the latter has an earlier relevant date. Of
course, if all the matter in the prior art was made available to the public before the date of the
earliest priority document, the examiner need not (and should not) concern himself with the
allocation of priority dates.
11.26 The validity of priority dates for a claim or a part of a claim is considered in detail in
Chapter 6.

Page 107
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 12
Novelty

Meaning of Novelty
12.01 For the purposes of the opinion given by an international preliminary examination,
the invention, as defined by a claim, lacks novelty if every element or step is explicitly or
inherently disclosed within the prior art defined in Rule 64.1 (see paragraphs 11.01 and
11.04), including any features implicit to a person skilled in the art (see paragraph 13.11 for a
definition of the “person skilled in the art”). Inherency requires that the extrinsic evidence
relied on by the examiner must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons skilled in the art.
Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. Well-known
equivalents not disclosed within a prior art document are not considered when assessing
novelty; this is a matter of obviousness (see Chapter 13 – Inventive Step). Naturally the
same considerations apply when producing a written opinion and in selecting documents for
inclusion in the international search report (except that in this case the relevant date may be
different, see paragraphs 11.02 and 11.05).
12.02 The prior art disclosure must enable a person skilled in the art to carry out the
claimed invention. Ordinarily, enablement may be inferred by the examiner when
considering patent documents (published applications and issued patents) within the prior
art. When considering non-patent literature that on its face raises a question as to
enablement, the examiner should determine that the prior art would have enabled a person
skilled in the art to carry out the claimed invention. When determining whether a particular
document is enabling and therefore defeats novelty, knowledge from outside the prior art
document may be considered where appropriate. See the appendix to this chapter for
additional guidance regarding what knowledge from outside the prior art document may be
considered when making this determination. A chemical compound, the name or formula of
which was mentioned in a document, is not considered as known unless the information in
the document, together, where appropriate, with other knowledge generally available to a
person skilled in the art, enable it to be prepared and separated or, for instance in the case of
a product of nature, only to be separated. A prior art document that does not defeat novelty
because it is not enabling for the claimed invention may nonetheless be relied upon in
determining whether the claimed invention lacks inventive step. See Chapter 13.
Considerations in Determining Novelty
Methodology
12.03 For the assessment of novelty, the examiner should apply the following steps:
(i) evaluate the elements of the claimed invention;
(ii) determine if a document under consideration forms part of the “prior art” (see
paragraphs 11.01 to 11.05);
(iii) assess whether each and every element or step of the claimed invention was
explicitly or inherently disclosed in combination by the document, to a person skilled in the
art, on the date of publication of the document.
Inherent or Implicit Disclosure
12.04 Lack of novelty may be apparent from what is explicitly stated in a published
document, or it may be apparent from an inherent or implicit teaching of the document. For
example, where the elastic properties of rubber are relied upon in a document that does not
explicitly state that rubber is an “elastic material,” a claim to an “elastic material” is
anticipated because the rubber taught in the prior art inherently is an “elastic material”.
Alternatively, lack of novelty may be implicit in the sense that, in carrying out the teaching of

Page 108
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the prior document, the skilled person would inevitably arrive at a result falling within the
terms of the claim. Lack of novelty of this kind should be raised by the examiner only where
there can be no reasonable doubt as to the practical effect of the prior teaching. Otherwise it
should be considered in respect of inventive step (see Chapter 13).
Interpretation of Claims
12.05 In interpreting claims for the consideration of novelty, the examiner should have
regard to the guidance given in paragraphs 5.20 to 5.41. In particular, the examiner should
remember that statements in the claim reciting the purpose or intended use must be
evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural
difference (or in the case of process claims, a difference in the process steps) between the
claimed invention and the prior art. Non-distinctive characteristics of a particular intended
use should be disregarded (see paragraphs 5.21 to 5.23). For example, a claim to a
substance X for use as a catalyst would not be considered to be novel over the same
substance known as a dye, unless the use referred to implies a particular form of the
substance (for example, the presence of certain additives) which distinguishes it from the
known form of the substance. That is to say, characteristics not explicitly stated but implied
by the particular use should be taken into account. For example, if a claim refers to a “mould
for molten steel”, this implies certain limitations for the mould. Therefore a plastic ice cube
tray with a melting point much lower than that of steel would not come within the claim which
would thereby be considered as being novel.
Combining Documents
12.06 It should be noted that in considering novelty (as distinct from inventive step), it is
not permissible to combine separate items of prior art together (see paragraph 13.12).
However, if a document (the “primary” document) refers explicitly to a second document (for
example, as providing more detailed information on certain features), the teachings of the
second document may be regarded as incorporated into the primary document to the extent
indicated in the primary document. Equally, it is permissible to use a dictionary or similar
document of reference in order to interpret how a special term used in the primary document
would have been understood on the date of publication. It is also permissible to rely on
additional documents as evidence to show that the disclosure of the primary document was
sufficient (for example, for a chemical compound to be prepared and separated or, in the
case of a product of nature, to be separated). See paragraph 12.02 and the appendix to this
chapter. It is also permissible to rely on additional documents as evidence to show that a
characteristic not disclosed in the primary document was inherent in the primary document
on the date of publication of the primary document (for example, documents that teach
rubber to be an “elastic material” for the example set forth in paragraph 12.04).
Alternatives
12.07 Where a claim contains alternatives, for example Markush claims (P1, P2, P3 ...
Pn), any alternatives disclosed in the prior art are anticipated.
Generic vs. Specific Disclosures
12.08 Where a claim recites an invention in generic terms, for the determination of
novelty, the disclosure of a specific example falling within the parameters of the generic claim
anticipates the generic claim. For example, a disclosure of copper in a prior art document
defeats the novelty of metal as a generic concept, but not the novelty of any metal other than
copper, and a disclosure of rivets defeats the novelty of fastening means as a generic
concept, but not the novelty of any specific fastening means other than rivets.
12.09 An item of prior art that discloses a genus does not always anticipate a claim to a
species falling within the genus. In other words, if a claim under examination recites a
specific example, and that specific example is not explicitly named but falls within a generic
disclosure found in an item of prior art, the claim is not anticipated unless the specific
example is identified with sufficient specificity in the item of prior art. If the item of prior art

Page 109
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

identifies the claimed example with sufficient specificity, that example lacks novelty no matter
how many other species are additionally described in the item of prior art.
Ranges
12.10 A specific example in the item of prior art which is within a claimed range
anticipates the range claimed. Therefore, where, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a
claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is described in the
item of prior art. For example, a claim to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6 to 0.7% nickel (Ni) and
0.2 to 0.4% Molybdenum (Mo) would be anticipated by an item of prior art that describes a Ti
alloy containing 0.65% Ni and 0.3% Mo. Where an item of prior art discloses a range which
touches, overlaps or is within the claimed range, but does not disclose a specific example
falling within the claimed range, a case by case determination must be made as to the
novelty of the claim. In order to anticipate the claim, the claimed subject matter should be
disclosed with sufficient specificity in the item of prior art. If the claim is directed to a narrow
range, the item of prior art discloses a broad range, and the claimed narrow range is not
merely one way of carrying out the teaching of the item of prior art (for example, there is
evidence that the effect of the selection (for example, unexpected results) occurred in all
probability only within the claimed narrow range), depending on the other facts of the case, it
may be reasonable to conclude that the narrow range is not disclosed with sufficient
specificity in the prior art in order to anticipate the claims (a selection invention). The
unexpected results may also render the claims unobvious. See Chapter 13 – Inventive Step.
Appendix to Chapter 12

A12.02 The International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities have

divergent practices with regard to what extrinsic knowledge may be considered when
determining whether a particular item of prior art sufficiently discloses the claimed invention
to defeat novelty. Some Authorities follow the first guideline below, while other Authorities
follow the second guideline below. Authorities that do not follow these guidelines may
nevertheless rely on the prior art document in determining whether the claimed invention
lacks inventive step.
A12.02[1] The prior document must provide a sufficient disclosure on its effective date.
By “effective date” is meant the publication date in the case of a previously published
document. Authorities following this practice require the prior document, together with
knowledge generally available on the effective date of the document, to provide a sufficient
disclosure of every element or step of the claimed invention to a person skilled in the art.
A12.02[2].1 The prior document must provide a sufficient disclosure on the “relevant date”
of the claim being searched or examined. See paragraph 11.03 for a definition of the
relevant date for international search report purposes. See paragraphs 11.04 and 11.05 for
a definition of the relevant date for written opinion and international preliminary examination
purposes.
A12.02[2].2 Authorities following this practice consider knowledge that became available
after the publication date of the prior document but before the relevant date of the claim
being searched or examined to determine whether the prior document provided a sufficient
disclosure of every element or step of the claimed invention to a person skilled in the art.

Page 110
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 13
Inventive step

Meaning of Inventive Step

13.01 A claimed invention is considered to involve an inventive step if, having regard to
the prior art as defined in the Regulations (see paragraph 11.01), it is not, at the relevant
date (see paragraphs 11.02 to 11.05) obvious to a person skilled in the art. Novelty and
inventive step are different criteria. A claim lacks novelty if every element or step is explicitly
or inherently disclosed within the prior art (see paragraph 12.01). The condition of inventive
step/non-obviousness is fulfilled if the invention as a whole, compared to the prior art as a
whole, would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Multiple items of prior
art may be combined in the determination of whether the requirement of inventive
step/non-obviousness is met. Therefore, the examiner should take into consideration the
claim’s relation not only to individual documents or parts thereof taken separately but also to
combinations of such documents or parts of documents, where such combinations are
obvious to a person skilled in the art.
13.02 The “prior art” for the purposes of considering inventive step is as defined in
Article 33(3) (see Chapter 11); it does not include later published applications or patents
although, in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 11.07 (see also paragraph 16.46), a
later published application or patent may be cited in the international preliminary examination
report.
Considerations in Determining Inventive Step
What Is “Obvious”?
13.03 The question to consider, in relation to any claim defining matter for which
protection is sought, is whether, at the relevant date of that claim, it would have been obvious
to a person skilled in the art to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claim having
regard to the art known at that time. If so, the claim is considered to lack inventive step. The
term “obvious” means that which does not go beyond the normal progress of technology but
merely follows plainly or logically from the prior art, that is, something which does not involve
the exercise of any skill or ability beyond that to be expected of the person skilled in the art.
The following are the basic considerations that apply in determining inventive
step/non-obviousness:
(i) the claimed invention must be considered as a whole;
(ii) the references must be considered as a whole and the skilled person must be
motivated or prompted into combining the teaching of the documents so as to arrive at the
subject matter as claimed including consideration of a reasonable expectation or likelihood of
success; and
(iii) the references must be viewed without the benefit of impermissible hindsight
vision afforded by the claimed invention.
Light of Later Knowledge
13.04 In considering inventive step, as distinct from novelty (see paragraph 12.02 and
the appendix to Chapter 12), it is fair to construe any published document in the light of
subsequent knowledge and to have regard to all the knowledge generally available to the
person skilled in the art at the relevant date of the claim.
Invention as a Whole; Combination of Known or Obvious Elements
13.05 In determining inventive step (non-obviousness), the invention claimed must
normally be considered as a whole. In determining the differences between the prior art and
the claims, the question is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious
but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. Thus, it is not

Page 111
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

correct as a general rule, in the case of a combination claim, to argue that the separate
features of the combination, taken by themselves, are known or obvious and that “therefore”
the whole subject matter claimed is obvious. The only exception to this rule is where there is
no functional relationship between the features of the combination. That is, where the claim
is merely for a juxtaposition of features and not a true combination (see the example under
paragraph 13.14(d)).
13.06 While the claim should, in each case, be directed to technical features (and not, for
example, merely to an idea) in order to assess whether an inventive step is present, it is
important for the examiner to bear in mind that there are various ways in which a person
skilled in the art may arrive at an invention.
13.07 In identifying the contribution any particular invention makes to the art in order to
determine whether there is an inventive step, account should be taken first of what the
applicant himself acknowledges in his description and claims to be known; any such
acknowledgment of known art should be regarded by the examiner as being correct unless
the applicant states he has made a mistake. However, the further prior art contained in the
international search report or any additional document considered to be relevant may put the
claimed invention in an entirely different perspective from that apparent from the disclosure
by itself and, indeed, this cited prior art may cause the applicant voluntarily to amend his
claims to redefine his invention. The general knowledge of the person skilled in the art
should also be taken into account for the determination of inventive step. Also, the prior art
must be enabling for what is taught therein, even if it is not the entirety of the claimed
invention. Therefore, whatever combination of items of prior art and admission or general
knowledge is used, this combination must provide enablement with respect to the claimed
invention.
Assessing the Contribution Against the Prior Art
13.08 The following considerations should be applied in the assessment of inventive
step/non-obviousness:
(i) determination of the scope of the claimed invention;
(ii) determination of the scope of the relevant item(s) of prior art;
(iii) determination of a person skilled in the art in the relevant case;
(iv) identification of the differences and similarities between the relevant item(s) of
prior art and the claimed invention;
(v) assessment of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been
obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the relevant item(s) of prior art and the
general knowledge of a person skilled in the art.
13.09 The invention as a whole is obvious if any item(s) of prior art or general knowledge
of the person of skill in the art would have motivated or prompted the person of skill in the art
on the relevant date (see paragraphs 11.02 to 11.05) to reach the claimed invention by
substituting, combining or modifying one or more of those items of prior art with a reasonable
likelihood of success. One particular way to determine inventive step is to apply the
problem-solution approach, described in the appendix to this chapter.
13.10 In order to reach a final conclusion as to whether any claim includes an inventive
step, it is necessary to determine the difference between the subject matter of that claim as a
whole and the whole of the known art (so far as dependent claims are concerned see also
paragraph 13.19). In considering this matter, the examiner should not proceed solely from
the point of view suggested by the form of claim (prior art plus characterizing portion; see
paragraphs 5.04 to 5.08). The examiner should identify the closest prior art as the basis for
the assessment of inventive step. This is considered to be that combination of features
derivable from one single reference that provides the best basis for considering the question
of obviousness. In determining the scope of the disclosure of the items of prior art, in

Page 112
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

addition to the explicit disclosure, an implicit disclosure, that is, a teaching which a person
skilled in the art could reasonably draw from the explicit disclosure, should also be taken into
account. The critical time for the determination of such disclosure is the claim date of the
application concerned. The general knowledge of the person skilled in the art on the relevant
date of the claim should also be taken into account.
The “Person Skilled in the Art”
13.11 The person skilled in the art should be presumed to be a hypothetical person
having ordinary skill in the art and being aware of what was common general knowledge in
the art at the relevant date. He should also be presumed to have had access to everything in
the “prior art,” in particular, the documents cited in the international search report, and to
have had at his disposal the normal means and capacity for routine experimentation. If the
problem on which the invention is based and which arises from the closest prior art prompts
the person skilled in the art to seek its solution in another technical field, the person skilled in
the art in that field is the person qualified to solve the problem. The assessment of whether
the solution involves an inventive step must therefore be based on that specialist’s
knowledge and ability. There may be instances where it is more appropriate to think in terms
of a group of persons, for example, a research or production team, than a single person.
This may apply, for example, in certain advanced technologies such as computers or
telephone systems and in highly specialized processes such as the commercial production of
integrated circuits or of complex chemical substances.
Combining Teachings
13.12 In considering whether there is inventive step as distinct from novelty (see
Chapter 12), it is permissible to combine the teachings of two or more prior art references, for
example, different published patents, or several teachings contained in the same prior art
reference, such as one particular book, but only where such combination would be obvious
to the person skilled in the art. In determining whether it would be obvious to combine the
teachings of two or more distinct documents, the examiner should have regard to the
following:
(i) whether the nature and content of the documents are such as to make it likely
or unlikely that the person skilled in the art would combine them;
(ii) whether the documents come from similar or neighboring technical fields and if
not, whether the documents are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
invention was concerned.
13.13 The combination, substitution or modification of the teachings of one or more items
of prior art may only lead to a lack of inventive step/obviousness where a person skilled in
the art would have been motivated by the prior art or his general knowledge, with a
reasonable likelihood, to combine, substitute or modify one or more items of prior art.
Conversely, where such combination could not have been expected from a person skilled in
the art, the requirement of inventive step (non-obviousness) would be met, even if each
single item would have been obvious if taken individually. The combining of two or more
parts of the same document would be obvious if there is a reasonable basis for the person
skilled in the art to associate these parts with one another. It would normally be obvious to
combine with other prior art documents a well-known text book or standard dictionary; this is
only a special case of the general proposition that it is obvious to combine the teaching of
one or more documents with the common general knowledge in the art. It would, generally
speaking, also be obvious to combine the teachings of two documents, one of which contains
a clear and unmistakable reference to the other. It should be noted that the motivation to
modify the prior art teachings need not be the same as the applicant’s. It is not necessary
that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result
discovered by the applicant. The prior art may suggest the claimed invention, but for a
different purpose or to solve a different problem. In some instances the content of a single

Page 113
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

item of prior art may lead to a finding of lack of inventive step. Examples of such instances
are described in the appendix to this chapter.
Examples
13.14 The following examples provide guidance, as to circumstances where a claimed
invention should be regarded as obvious or where it involves a positive determination of an
inventive step (non-obviousness). It is to be stressed that these examples are only guides
for the examiners and that the applicable principle in each case is “was it obvious to a person
skilled in the art?” Examiners should avoid attempts to fit a particular case into one of these
examples where the latter is not clearly applicable. Also the list is not exhaustive.
(a) Claimed inventions involving the application of known measures in an obvious way
and in respect of which an inventive step is therefore lacking:
(i) The teaching of a prior document is incomplete as to the entire claimed
invention and at least one of the possible ways of supplying the missing claim feature(s)
would naturally or readily occur to the person skilled in the art thereby resulting in the
claimed invention.
Example: The claimed invention relates to a building structure made from aluminum.
A prior document discloses the same structure and says that it is of lightweight material
but fails to mention the use of aluminum. Aluminum is a light-weight material that is
well known in the art to be useful as a building material.
(ii) The claimed invention differs from the prior art merely in the use of well-known
equivalents (mechanical, electrical or chemical) possessing the same purpose, wherein the
equivalency is recognized in the prior art. Note that the applicant’s recognition within the
international application that an element is equivalent to another, which had previously been
used for a different purpose, does not mean that the use of this element instead of the other
is obvious.
Example: The claimed invention relates to a pump-motor combination which differs
from a known pump-motor combination solely in that the motor is hydraulic instead of
an electric motor.
(iii) The claimed invention consists merely in a new use of a well-known material
employing the known properties of that material.
Example: A washing composition containing as a detergent a known compound having
the known property of lowering the surface tension of water, this property being known
to be an essential one for detergents.
(iv) The claimed invention consists in the substitution in a known device of a
recently developed material whose properties make it plainly suitable for that use (analogous
substitution).
Example: An electric cable comprises a polyethylene sheath bonded to a metallic
shield by an adhesive. The claimed invention lies in the use of a particularly newly
developed adhesive known to be suitable for polymer-metal bonding.
(v) The claimed invention consists merely in the use of a known technique in a
closely analogous situation (analogous use).
Example: The claimed invention resides in the application of a pulse control technique
to the electric motor driving the auxiliary mechanisms of an industrial truck, such as a
fork-lift truck, the use of this technique to control the electric propulsion motor of the
truck being already known.

Page 114
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(b) Claimed inventions involving the application of known measures in a non-obvious

way and in respect of which an inventive step is therefore present:
(i) A known working method or means when used for a different purpose involves
a new, surprising effect.
Example: It is known that high-frequency power can be used in inductive butt welding.
It should therefore be obvious that high-frequency power could also be used in
conductive butt welding with similar effect. An inventive step would exist in this case,
however, if high-frequency power were used for the continuous conductive butt welding
of a coiled strip but without removing scale (such scale removal being ordinarily
necessary in order to avoid arcing between the welding contact and the strip). The
unexpected result is that scale removal is found to be unnecessary because at high
frequency the current is supplied in a predominantly capacitive manner via the scale
which forms a dielectric.
(ii) A new use of a known device or material involves overcoming technical
difficulties not resolvable by routine techniques providing that the means for overcoming the
technical difficulties are defined in the claim.
Example: The claimed invention relates to a device for supporting and controlling the
rise and fall of gas holders, enabling the previously employed external guiding
framework to be dispensed with. A similar device was known for supporting floating
docks or pontoons but practical difficulties not encountered in the known applications
needed to be overcome in applying the device to a gas holder.
(c) Obvious combination of features not involving an inventive step:
The claimed invention consists merely in the juxtaposition or association of known devices or
processes functioning in their normal way and not producing any non-obvious working
interrelationship.
Example: Machine for producing sausages consists of a known mincing machine and
a known filling machine disposed end to end.
(d) Not obvious and consequently a combination of features involving an inventive
step:
The combined features mutually support each other in their effects to such an extent that a
new technical result is achieved. It is irrelevant whether each individual feature is fully or
partly known by itself.
Example: A mixture of medicines consists of a painkiller (analgesic) and a tranquilizer
(sedative). It was found that through the addition of the tranquilizer, which intrinsically
appeared to have no pain-killing effect, the analgesic effect of the pain-killer was
intensified in a way which could not have been predicted from the known properties of
the active substances.
(e) Obvious selection or choice among a number of known possibilities not involving
an inventive step:
(i) The claimed invention consists merely in choosing from a number of equally
likely alternatives.
Example: The claimed invention relates to a known chemical process in which it is
known to supply heat electrically to the reaction mixture. There are a number of
well-known alternative ways of so supplying the heat; the claimed invention resides
merely in the choice of one alternative way of supplying the desired heat.
(ii) The claimed invention resides in the choice of particular dimensions,
concentrations, temperature ranges or other parameters from a limited range of possibilities,
and it is clear that these parameters or workable ranges were encompassed by the prior art

Page 115
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

and could be arrived at by routine trial and error or by the application of normal design
procedures. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Example: The claimed invention relates to a process for carrying out a known reaction
and is characterized by a specified rate of flow of an inert gas. The prescribed rates
are merely those which would necessarily be arrived at by a person skilled in the art.
(iii) The claimed invention can be arrived at merely by a simple extrapolation in a
straightforward way from the known art.
Example: The claimed invention is characterized by the use of a specified minimum
content of a substance X in a preparation Y in order to improve its thermal stability, and
this characterizing feature can be derived merely by extrapolation on a straight-line
graph, obtainable from the known art, relating thermal stability to the content of
substance X.
(iv) The claimed invention consists merely in selecting a small number of chemical
compounds (that is, a subgenus or species) from a broad field of chemical compounds
(genus).
Example: The prior art discloses a chemical compound characterized by a generic
formula including a substituent group designated “R.” This substituent “R” is defined so
as to embrace entire ranges of broadly defined radical groups such as all alkyl or aryl
groups either unsubstituted or substituted by halogen and/or hydroxy. Only a very
small number of examples of specific embodiments within the broadly defined radical
groups are disclosed in the prior art. The claimed invention consists in the selection of
a particular radical or small group of radicals from among those well-known to be
contained within the broadly defined radical groups disclosed in the prior art as the
substituent “R”. The prior art provides motivation to select any well-known member of
the broadly defined radical groups and thus, provides motivation to one skilled in the art
to make the modifications needed to arrive at the claimed compound(s). Moreover, the
resulting compounds:
– are not described as having, nor shown to possess, any advantageous properties
not possessed by the prior art examples; or
– are described as possessing advantageous properties, compared with the
compounds specifically referred to in the prior art but these properties are ones which
the person skilled in the art would expect such compounds to possess so that he is
likely to be led to make this selection.
(f) Non-obvious selection or choice and consequently inventive step among a number
of known possibilities:
(i) The claimed invention involves the special selection within a process of
particular operating conditions (for example, temperature and pressure) within a known
range, such selection producing unexpected effects in the operation of the process or the
properties of the resulting product.
Example: In a process where substance A and substance B are transformed at high
temperature into substance C, it was known in the prior art that there is in general a
constantly increased yield of substance C as the temperature increases in the range
between 50 and 130°C. It is now found that in the temperature range from 63 to 65°C,
which previously had not been explored, the yield of substance C was considerably
higher than expected.
(ii) The claimed invention consists in selecting particular chemical compounds
(subgenus or species) from a broad field of compounds (genus), wherein the specific
compounds selected have unexpected advantages.

Page 116
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Example: In the example of a substituted chemical compound given at (iv) under (e),
above, the claimed invention again resides in the selection of the substituent radical “R”
from the total field of possibilities defined in the prior art. In this case, however, not
only does the invention embrace the selection of specific compounds from the possible
generic field of compounds and result in compounds that are described and shown to
possess advantageous properties, but there are no indications which would lead the
person skilled in the art to this particular selection rather than any other in order to
achieve the described advantageous properties.
(g) Overcoming a technical prejudice:
As a general rule, there is an inventive step if the prior art leads the person skilled in the art
away from the procedure proposed by the claimed invention. This applies in particular when
the person skilled in the art would not even consider carrying out experiments to determine
whether these were alternatives to the known way of overcoming a real or imagined technical
obstacle.
Example: Drinks containing carbon dioxide are, after being sterilized, bottled while hot
in sterilized bottles. The general opinion is that immediately after withdrawal of the
bottle from the filling device, the bottled drink must be automatically shielded from the
outside air so as to prevent the bottled drink from spurting out. A process involving the
same steps but in which no precautions are taken to shield the drink from the outside
air (because none are in fact necessary) could therefore involve an inventive step.
Other considerations
Ex Post Facto Analysis
13.15 It should be remembered that a claimed invention which at first sight appears
obvious might in fact involve an inventive step. Once a new idea has been formulated, it can
often be shown theoretically how it might be arrived at, starting from something known, by a
series of apparently easy steps. The examiner should be wary of ex post facto analysis of
this kind. The prior art must be viewed without the benefit of impermissible hindsight vision
afforded by the claimed invention. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed invention
must be found in the prior art and/or the general knowledge of the person skilled in the art
and not based on the applicant’s disclosure. A factor to be considered in determining the
motivation or prompting for combining the prior art teachings is whether there would have
been a reasonable expectation or likelihood of success in combining the collective
suggestions in the prior art. In all cases, the examiner should seek to make a practical
“real-life” assessment. The examiner should take into account all that is known concerning
the background of the claimed invention and give fair weight to relevant arguments or
evidence submitted by the applicant.
Technical Value, Long-Felt Needs
13.16 In order to establish the positive assertion that the claimed invention involves an
inventive step (non-obviousness), the following factors should also be taken into account as
secondary considerations:
(i) whether the claimed invention fulfills a long-felt need;
(ii) whether the claimed invention overcomes a scientific prejudice;
(iii) whether others have previously attempted, but failed to achieve what the
claimed invention achieves;
(iv) whether the claimed invention involves an unexpected result; and
(v) whether the claimed invention has a particular commercial success.
13.17 If, for example, a claimed invention is shown to be of considerable technical value
and, particularly, if it provides a technical advantage which is new and surprising and this can

Page 117
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

be convincingly related to one or more of the features included in the claim defining the
invention, the examiner should be hesitant in raising a negative determination that such a
claim lacks inventive step. The same applies where the claimed invention solves a technical
problem which workers in the art have been attempting to solve for a long time, or otherwise
fulfills a long-felt need, or overcomes a scientific prejudice.
Commercial Success
13.18 Commercial success alone is not to be regarded as indicative of inventive step, but
evidence of immediate commercial success when coupled with evidence of a long-felt want
is of relevance provided the examiner is satisfied that the success derives from the technical
features of the claimed invention and not from other influences (for example, selling
techniques or advertising) and is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims
Rule 6.4(b)
13.19 The examiner should bear in mind that, when considering whether the claimed
invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and to be
industrially applicable, a dependent claim is regarded as limited by all the features of the
claim on which it depends. Therefore, if the statement concerning novelty of the independent
claim is positive, it should normally be positive for the dependent claims. This principle
applies to inventive step and industrial applicability as well, unless the dependent claim
contains an additional feature which makes the invention industrially inapplicable.
Appendix to Chapter 13

Problem-Solution Approach
A13.08.1 One specific method of assessing inventive step might be to apply the so called
“problem-solution approach”. The approach consists of the following stages:
1. determining the closest prior art (see also paragraph 13.08);
2. establishing the objective technical problem to be solved; and
3. considering whether or not the claimed invention, starting from the closest prior
art and the objective technical problem would have been obvious to the skilled person.
Step 1
A13.08.2 The closest prior art is that combination of features derivable from one single
reference that provides the best basis for considering the question of obviousness. The
closest prior art may be, for example:
(i) a known combination in the technical field concerned that discloses technical
effects, purpose or intended use, most similar to the claimed invention; or
(ii) that combination which has the greatest number of technical features in
common with the invention and is capable of performing the function of the invention.
Step 2
A13.08.3 In the second stage one establishes in an objective way the technical problem to
be solved. To do this, one studies the claimed invention, the closest prior art, and the
difference in terms of features (structural and functional) between the claimed invention and
the closest prior art, and then formulates the technical problem.
A13.08.4 In this context the technical problem means the aim and task of modifying or
adapting the closest prior art to provide the technical effects that the claimed invention
provides over the closest prior art.
A13.08.5 The technical problem derived in this way may not be what the application
presents as “the problem,” since the objective technical problem is based on objectively

Page 118
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

established facts, in particular appearing in the prior art revealed in the course of the
proceedings, which may be different from the prior art of which the applicant was actually
aware at the time the application was filed.
A13.08.6 The expression “technical problem” should be interpreted broadly; it does not
necessarily imply that the solution is a technical improvement over the prior art. Thus the
problem could be simply to seek an alternative to a known device or process providing the
same or similar effects or which is more cost-effective.
A13.08.7 Sometimes the features of a claim provide more than one technical effect, so one
can speak of the technical problem as having more than one part or aspect, each
corresponding to one of the technical effects. In such cases, each part or aspect generally
has to be considered in turn.
Step 3
A13.08.8 In the third stage the question to be answered is whether there is any teaching in
the prior art as a whole that would (not simply could, but would) prompt the skilled person,
faced with the technical problem, to modify or adapt the closest prior art while taking account
of that teaching, thus arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus
achieving what the invention achieves.”
A13.08.9 Note that the requirement of technical progress is not a requirement for the
problem-solution approach. Nevertheless, according to the problem-solution approach an
objective problem can always be formulated (“finding an alternative”, “making it easier to
manufacture”, “cheaper to manufacture”) even in the case where there is no technical
progress.
Examples in which a single document calls into question the inventive step
A13.13 Under the practice of some Authorities, a document whose content alone calls into
question the inventive step of at least one independent claim, and possibly that of one or
more claims depending on it would be categorized as “X”. The following are examples of
situations in which this may occur:
(i) where a technical feature known in a technical field is applied from its original
field to another field and its application therein would have been obvious to a person skilled
in the art;
(ii) where a difference between the document’s content and the claimed matter is
so well known that documentary evidence is unnecessary;
(iii) where the claimed subject matter relates to the use of a known product, and
the use would have been obvious from the known properties of the product;
(iv) where the claimed invention differs from the known art merely in the use of
equivalents that are so well known that the citation of documentary evidence is unnecessary.

Page 119
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 14
Industrial Applicability

Meaning of Industrial Applicability

Articles 5, 33(4), 34(4)(a)(ii), 35(3)(a)
14.01 A claimed invention is considered industrially applicable if, according to its nature,
it can be made or used (in the technological sense) in any kind of industry. The term
“industrially applicable” may be deemed by an International Authority to be synonymous with
the term “utility”. See the appendix to this chapter.
14.02 “Industry” is understood in its broadest sense, as in the Paris Convention for the
Protection of Industrial Property. Industry therefore includes any physical activity of a
technical character, that is, an activity which belongs to the useful or practical arts as distinct
from the aesthetic arts; it does not necessarily imply the use of a machine or the
manufacture of an article and could cover a process for dispersing fog, or a process for
converting energy from one form to another.
14.03 Focusing on the general common characteristics of the industrial applicability and
utility requirements, an invention that is inoperative, for example, an invention which is clearly
non-operable in view of well-established laws of nature, does not comply with either the
industrial applicability requirement or the utility requirement. This type of invention is
considered either as having no application in industry or as not being useful for any purpose,
because it doesn’t work.
Methodology
14.04 For the assessment of industrial applicability, the following steps are applied:
(i) determine what the applicant has claimed; and
(ii) determine whether a person skilled in the art would recognize the claimed
invention to have industrial applicability.
14.05 In most cases, industrial applicability will be self-evident and no more explicit
description on this point will be required.
Rules 43bis, 66.2(a)(ii), 70.8
14.06 If any product or process is alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to
well-established physical laws and thus the invention cannot be carried out by a person
skilled in the art, the claim does not have industrial applicability and the applicant should be
so notified.

Appendix to Chapter 14

A14.01 Not all International Authorities have the same requirements for industrial
applicability. An International Authority may rely upon either of the alternative guidelines
below as appropriate.
Utility
A14.01[1] The term “industrially applicable” may be deemed by an International Authority
to be synonymous with the term “utility.” Accordingly, a claimed invention is considered
industrially applicable if it has a utility that is: (a) specific, (b) substantial, and (c) credible.
Specific, or Particular, Utility
(a) It is necessary to distinguish between situations where an applicant has disclosed
a specific use or application of the invention, and situations where the applicant merely
indicates that the invention may prove useful without identifying with specificity why it is
considered useful. For example, indicating that a compound may be useful in treating

Page 120
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

unspecified disorders, or that the compound has “useful biological” properties, would not be
sufficient to define a specific utility for the compound. Similarly, a claim to a polynucleotide
whose use is disclosed simply as a “gene probe” or “chromosome marker” would not be
considered to be specific in the absence of a disclosure of specific DNA target. A general
statement that a compound could be used to diagnose a disease would ordinarily be
insufficient absent a disclosure of what condition can be diagnosed. Contrast the situation
where an applicant discloses a specific biological activity of a compound and reasonably
correlates that activity to a disease condition. Assertions falling within the latter category are
sufficient to identify a specific utility for the invention. Assertions that fall in the former
category are insufficient to define a specific utility for the invention, especially if the assertion
takes the form of a general statement that makes it clear that a “useful” invention may arise
from what has been disclosed by the applicant.
Substantial, or Practical “Real World” Utility
(b) Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or
reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use are not substantial utilities. For example,
both a compound for treating a known or newly discovered disease and an assay method for
identifying compounds that themselves have a “substantial utility” define a “real world”
context of use. An assay that measures the presence of a material which has a stated
correlation to a predisposition to the onset of a particular disease condition would also define
a “real world” context of use in identifying potential candidates for preventive measures or
further monitoring. It is necessary to distinguish between inventions that have a specifically
identified substantial utility and inventions whose asserted utility requires further research to
identify or reasonably confirm. Labels such as “research tool,” “intermediate” or “for research
purposes” are not helpful in determining whether an applicant has identified a specific and
substantial utility for the invention. The following are examples of situations that require or
constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context
of use and, therefore, do not define “substantial utilities:”
(i) basic research such as studying the properties of the claimed product itself or
the mechanisms in which the material is involved;
(ii) a method of assaying for or identifying a material that itself has no specific
and/or substantial utility;
(iii) a method of making a material that itself has no specific, substantial, and
credible utility; and
(iv) a claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no
specific, substantial and credible utility.
Credible Utility
(c) An assertion is credible unless (i) the logic underlying the assertion is seriously
flawed, or (ii) the facts upon which the assertion is based are inconsistent with the logic
underlying the assertion. Credibility, as used in this context, refers to the reliability of the
statement based on the logic and facts that are offered by the applicant to support the
assertion of utility. One situation where an assertion of utility would not be considered
credible is where a person skilled in the art would consider the assertion to be “incredible in
view of contemporary knowledge” and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter
what contemporary knowledge might otherwise suggest. Claims directed to a compound for
curing a disease or vaccinating against a disease for which there have been no previously
successful cures or vaccines warrant careful review for compliance with the industrial
applicability requirement. The credibility of an asserted utility of a compound for treating a
human disorder may be more difficult to establish where current scientific understanding
suggests that such a task would be impossible. Such a determination has always required a
good understanding of the state of the art as of the time that the invention was made. The
fact that there is no known cure for a disease, however, cannot serve as the basis for a

Page 121
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

conclusion that such an invention lacks industrial applicability. Rather, it is necessary to

determine whether the asserted utility for the invention is credible, based on the information
disclosed in the application.
Industrial Applicability
A14.01[2].1 Some International Authorities consider claimed subject matter to have
industrial applicability only when all of the following requirements have been met; otherwise
industrial applicability is lacking:
(1) The international application must indicate the way in which the invention is
capable of exploitation in industry (its intended function, special purpose or specific use).
(2) The international application must disclose the invention in a manner
sufficiently clear and complete (defining means and ways) for the invention to be carried out
by a person skilled in the art. In the absence of such information it is permissible that the
manner for carrying out the invention is disclosed in a source that was available to the public
before the date of priority of the invention.
(3) It must actually be possible while carrying out any claim (or claims) by a person
skilled in the art to realize the indicated special purpose (specific use) of the invention.
Special Purpose
A14.01[2].2 It should be noted that as a rule the special purpose is readily apparent from
the subject matter as defined in a claim (or claims) or from the nature of the invention. For
example, when defining the subject matter of the invention as “computer” no question would
arise of whether it is possible to use it in industry, that is, that requirement (1) would be
considered to be complied with. On the other hand, if the subject matter of the invention
refers to a novel chemical compound or a process for producing a novel compound, the
invention would not be considered as complying with requirement (1) if the indication of its
specific use is lacking in the international application.
Clear and Complete Disclosure
A14.01[2].3 The application is deemed to describe the invention in a manner complying
with requirement (2) if the information contained in the international application, together with
information available from a source that was available to the public before the priority date of
the invention, is sufficient for the claimed subject matter to be carried out by a person skilled
in the art. The information provided by the application is appreciated not only from the point
of view of its use for carrying out the invention but also from the point of view of its use for
finding the required information in the prior art. For example, suppose an independent claim
defines a purported technical feature as follows: “heat expansion ratio for material from which
a unit Q of a mechanism is made is in the range from A to B.” Where the material having a
heat expansion ratio in the range is known from the prior art, the application shall be deemed
to disclose the invention in a manner complying with requirement (2) regardless of whether
the material is identified in the application or not. Where such material is not known from the
prior art, but the application contains information that is sufficient to manufacture the
material, requirement (2) is deemed to be satisfied.
A14.01[2].4 On the other hand, requirement (2) in the example given above would not be
deemed to have been complied with where a material having a heat expansion ratio in said
range is neither known from the prior art nor can be manufactured because the international
application as filed does not contain any information relating to its composition or its method
of manufacture.
Possibility of Realizing the Special Purpose
A14.01[2].5 Verification of compliance with requirement (3) is, in fact, a verification of the
technical correctness of the invention as defined in each claim. A positive result of such
verification means that the implementation of the invention in accordance with the purported

Page 122
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

technical features as set forth in the claim will result in an embodiment capable of being used
for the indicated special purpose.
A14.01[2].6 As an example, when the subject matter of the claim is “perpetuum mobile” it
would not be recognized as complying with requirement (3) even where the international
application complies with requirement (2), since it operates contrary to the well-established
physical laws. Requirement (3) is also deemed not to have been complied with in cases of
technical errors which are not necessarily linked with basic laws of nature but nevertheless
result in a failure of the claimed subject matter to be usable for the special purpose indicated
by the applicant.
A14.01[2].7 As another example, when a motor is claimed, requirement (3) would be
deemed to have been complied with if the functioning of the motor results in, say, mechanical
movement. If at the same time it is found that certain characteristics, for example, the
specified efficiency ratio of a motor, described in the international application cannot be
achieved, this finding is of no relevance in the context of the industrial applicability
requirement, but is to be treated under the sufficiency of description requirement.
Date at Which Requirements Must Be Met
A14.01[2].8 Verification of the compliance with requirements (1) to (3) is carried out as of
the priority date of the invention. Accordingly, if no prior disclosure made before the priority
date provided the information required to carry out the claimed invention and the earlier
application on the basis of which priority of the application concerned was claimed did not
contain such information, incorporation of the information into the application under review
would not be sufficient to establish the invention as having industrial applicability as of the
priority date and would be considered as adding new matter in contravention of Articles 19(2)
and 34(2)(b).

Page 123
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART IV
THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCH

Chapter 15
The International Search

Objective of the International Search and Supplementary International Search

Article 15(2), (4); Rules 33.1(a), 34
15.01 The objective of the international search is to discover relevant prior art, which
consists of everything which has been made available to the public anywhere in the world by
means of written disclosure (including drawings and other illustrations) (see Chapter 11) and
which is capable of being of assistance in determining that the claimed invention is or is not
new (see Chapter 12) and that it does or does not involve an inventive step (that is, that it is
or is not obvious; see Chapter 13), provided that the making available to the public occurred
prior to the international filing date. The International Searching Authority endeavors to
discover as much of the relevant prior art as its facilities permit, and in any case consults the
minimum documentation specified in Rule 34.
15.02 In order to establish the international search report, International Searching
Authorities are also encouraged to cite prior art documents which might be of assistance in
determining whether other requirements such as sufficiency, support and industrial
applicability are fulfilled.
15.03 The search must recognize that certain designated Offices have different
definitions of what is the effective date of the prior art. Accordingly, when performing the
search, examiners should be mindful to pick out and select for citation, where appropriate,
prior art which may be relevant in Offices other than the one in which they are situated.
However, the examiner need not expand the search beyond the standard search parameters
to discover such art. Where the search has been performed and such potentially relevant
prior art has been identified, examiners are encouraged to, for example, cite all relevant art
published prior to the international filing date even if that art and the international application
under consideration have common applicants and/or inventors. Examiners should follow
Article 11(3) in conducting the search, even if an Article 64(4) reservation exists.
15.04 A further objective of the international search is to avoid, or at least minimize,
additional searching at the national stage.
Non-Written Disclosures
Rule 33.1(b)
15.05 A non-written disclosure such as an oral disclosure, use, exhibition or other means
of disclosure is not relevant prior art for the purposes of the international search unless it is
substantiated by a written disclosure made available to the public prior to the international
filing date and it is the written disclosure which constitutes the prior art. However, if the date
on which the written disclosure was made available to the public was on or after the filing
date of the international application under consideration, the search report should separately
mention that fact and the date on which the written disclosure was available, even though
such a written disclosure does not meet the definition of relevant prior art in the international
phase, so long as the non-written disclosure was made available to the public on a date prior
to the international filing date (see paragraph 11.22) since such a non-written disclosure may
be considered to be prior art under national law in the national phase.
Geographical Location, Language, Age and Manner of Disclosure
15.06 It is to be noted that there is no restriction whatever with respect to the
geographical place where, or the language or manner in which, the relevant information was
made available to the public; also no age limit is stipulated with respect to documents
containing this information.

Page 124
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

15.07 Documents issued electronically are considered published provided they are
retrievable (see paragraphs 11.12 to 11.20).
The Examiner
Article 18; Rule 43
15.08 The international search is carried out and the international search report prepared
by an International Searching Authority. The international search itself is normally performed
by one examiner but is not limited to one. In appropriate cases, where the invention is of a
nature requiring searching in widely dispersed specialized fields, an international search
report containing the work of two or more examiners may be necessary.
Rule 43bis.1(a)
15.09 The examiner is also required to provide a written opinion on novelty, inventive
step and industrial applicability of the claimed invention at the same time as he establishes
the international search report. The international search report and written opinion together
serve to inform the International Preliminary Examining Authorities of the documents and
arguments necessary to complete the relevant assessments themselves if a demand for
international preliminary examination is made, as well as to inform the designated Offices for
the purposes of their consideration of the application in the national phase (the written
opinion being transmitted to them in the form of an international preliminary report on
patentability (Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty) if no international preliminary
examination report is established under Chapter II of the Treaty). Consequently it is
essential that the examiner is familiar with the requirements of examination.
Basis of the Search
Article 19; Rules 5.2, 13ter, 91.1; Section 208, AI Annex C
15.10 There is no right to amend the application until after the international search has
been established, consequently the international search must be carried out on the basis of
the search copy of the application as transmitted to the International Searching Authority by
the receiving Office, except that obvious mistakes may be corrected (see Chapter 8).
15.11 The application may contain later filed pages marked "INCORPORATED BY
REFERENCE (R. 20.6)". These are pages containing missing parts which have been
incorporated by reference from the priority document under Rules 4.18 and 20.6 by the
receiving Office. Such pages should be considered as originally filed and should be so
indicated on the forms. In case the examiner notices that the incorporated missing parts
were not completely contained in the priority document, then it may be noted in the written
opinion of the International Searching Authority (in the “Additional Comments” part of Box I)
on the separate sheet that there are doubts as to whether the missing parts were actually
completely contained in the priority document. In such a case the search report may further
include additional documents ("L") which would be relevant if a re-dating of the application
would be made. The application may also contain sheets stamped "Not to be considered
(R. 20.5(e) or 20.7)". This means that these sheets were not allowed by the receiving Office
under the above discussed provisions (for formal or substantive reasons) and the applicant
has withdrawn those parts in order to avoid re-dating of the application. Such sheets thus do
not belong to the application documents and should be ignored for search and examination.
Rule 13ter.1; Section 513
15.12 If the application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide and/or amino acid
sequences but does not contain a sequence listing complying with the relevant standard (see
paragraph 4.15) or contains the sequence listing only in paper (or image file) form, the
International Searching Authority may invite the applicant (with Form PCT/ISA/225) to
furnish, within a fixed time limit, a sequence listing in paper (or image file) form and/or in
electronic form complying with the standard for purposes of completion of the international
search. The furnishing of a sequence listing in response to an invitation by the International
Searching Authority may be subject to the payment of a fee set by the International
Searching Authority, which may not exceed 25% of the international filing fee (not taking into

Page 125
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

account any fee for each sheet of the international application in excess of 30 sheets). The
International Searching Authority should not, however, require payment of any late furnishing
fee if the absence of the sequence listing in a compliant form at the International Searching
Authority was due to the receiving Office failing to forward an electronic sequence listing it
had received for the purposes of Rule 13ter to the International Searching Authority, as
required by Rule 23.1(c). If the applicant complies with the invitation, the International
Searching Authority proceeds with the completion of the international search, the
international search report or declaration of non-establishment of international search report,
and the written opinion on the basis of the paper (or image file) and/or electronic forms of the
sequence listing provided. However, any sequence listing not contained in the international
application as filed will not, subject to Article 34, form part of the international application, but
will be used as a search tool. The Authority marks in the upper right hand corner of the first
sheet of any such listing provided in paper form “SUBSEQUENTLY FURNISHED
SEQUENCE LISTING NOT FORMING PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION ” or
the equivalent in the language of publication of the international application. If the applicant
does not comply with the invitation within the time limit or if the response to the invitation
does not comply with the standard, the International Searching Authority is required to
search the international application only to the extent that a meaningful search can be carried
out without the sequence listing.
Rules 5.2(b), 13ter.1(f); Section 513; AI Annex C
15.13 Where the sequence listing part of the description contains free text as defined in
the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions, but that free text
does not also appear in the main part of the description in the language thereof, the
International Searching Authority invites the applicant (with Form PCT/ISA/233) to correct the
application by adding the free text to the main part of the description. If the applicant
complies with the invitation, the International Searching Authority marks the replacement
sheet with the words “SUBSTITUTE SHEET (RULE 13ter.1(f))” or their equivalent in the
language of publication of the international application and the date of receipt, and transmits
the substitute sheets containing that free text to the receiving Office and the International
Bureau for inclusion of the sheets concerned in the home copy and the record copy,
respectively; it keeps a copy of those sheets for inclusion in the search copy. If the applicant
does not comply with the invitation, the International Searching Authority nevertheless
continues to perform the international search.
Rules 12.3, 23.1(b)
15.14 Where the language in which the international application is filed is not accepted
by the International Searching Authority that is to carry out the international search, the
applicant should have supplied to the receiving Office a translation of the international
application into a suitable language, however no such translation is required of the request
form or any sequence listing included as part of the description. The receiving Office sends
this translation as part of the search copy and the international search will be carried out on
the basis of this translation.
Rules 4.12, 12bis
15.15 The applicant may request the International Searching Authority to take into
account the results of an earlier search carried out by that or another International Searching
Authority or by another national (regional) Office. In this case, either a copy of the results of
the earlier search (in whatever form they are presented by the Authority or Office concerned)
will be sent by the receiving Office with the search copy, or in the alternative the International
Searching Authority will be requested to retrieve a copy for itself where either it prepared the
results of the earlier search itself, or else has access to them in a form and manner
acceptable to it, for example from a digital library.
15.16 The Authority may additionally invite the applicant (optionally using
Form PCT/ISA/238) to furnish the following items within a time limit reasonable under the
circumstances, where they have not been transmitted by the receiving Office and are not

Page 126
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

already available to it from its own records or from a digital library which it is prepared to use
for the purpose (and, if necessary, where the applicant has informed the Authority that the
document is so available):
(i) a copy of the earlier application concerned;
(ii) where the earlier application is in a language which is not accepted by the
International Searching Authority, a translation of the earlier application into a language
which is accepted by that Authority;
(iii) where the results of the earlier search are in a language which is not accepted
by the International Searching Authority, a translation of those results into a language which
is accepted by that Authority;
(iv) a copy of any document cited in the results of the earlier search.
However, no copy or translation of the earlier application may be required if the applicant
indicates in the request that the earlier application is “the same, or substantially the same” as
the international application. By this, it is meant that the inventions described and claimed
are the same and any changes, beyond accurate translation where relevant, relate solely to
formatting and correction of minor errors, inclusion or removal of matter not specific to the
invention, but which is required in some States (such as details of public funding used in the
development of the invention).
Rules 16.3 and 41.1
15.17 Where the earlier search which the applicant requests to be taken into account
was carried out by the same International Authority, or by the same Office which is acting as
an International Searching Authority, that Authority must, to the extent possible, take the
results into account in establishing the international search report and written opinion.
15.17A Where the earlier search was carried out by another International Searching
Authority, or by an Office other than that which is acting as the International Searching
Authority, the Authority may take the results into account. “Taking the results into account” in
this context means finding a real benefit in those results to the extent that the earlier search
may be considered to stand in place of at least a part of the international search. In any
case, the examiner should consider the fields of search and cited documents in order to
determine their relevance and whether they offer assistance in determining appropriate
databases, classifications or terms of art in order to improve the quality of the international
search.
Rules 23bis(2) and 41.2
15.17B Where the international application claims the priority of one or more earlier
applications in respect of which an earlier search has been carried out by the same
International Searching Authority, or by the same Office as that which is acting as the
International Searching Authority, even where the applicant has not requested the
International Searching Authority to take such results into account, that Authority must, to the
extent possible, take those results into account in establishing the international search report
and written opinion (Rule 41.2(a)).
15.17C Where the international application claims the priority of one or more earlier
applications filed with the same Office as that which is acting as the receiving Office and that
Office has carried out an earlier search in respect of such an earlier application, or has
classified such earlier application and, pursuant to Rule 23bis.2(a) or (c), that receiving Office
has transmitted to the International Searching Authority a copy of any earlier search or
classification results, or where a copy of such results or classification is already available to
the International Searching Authority, in a form and manner acceptable to it, that Authority
may take those results into account in establishing the international search report and written
opinion (Rule 41.2(b)).

Page 127
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Scope of the International Search

Articles 18(2), 20(1)(a), 21(3), 33(6)
15.18 The international search is essentially a thorough, high quality, search of the most
relevant resources, and the report serves to provide information on the relevant prior art to
the applicant, to the public if the international application is published and to the designated
Offices and the International Preliminary Examining Authorities.
15.19 In some instances there are no facilities for systematic searching by the
designated Offices. The examiner should, therefore, assume that the designated Offices are
dependent on the work of the International Searching Authorities for their knowledge of the
state of the art on which their assessments of the patentability of the claimed invention will be
based.
15.20 Nevertheless, it must be realized that, even though completeness should be the
ultimate goal of the international search, this goal may not be necessarily obtained, because
of such factors as text search limitations and the inevitable imperfections of any classification
system and its implementation, and may not be economically justified if the cost is to be kept
within reasonable bounds. The examiner therefore considers the most relevant search
resources for the technology, including databases listed in the Search Guidance Intellectual
Property Digital Library (IPDL) (available through the WIPO web site at www.wipo.int), and
organizes the search effort and utilizes the search time in such a manner as to reduce to a
minimum the possibility of failing to discover existing highly relevant prior art, such as
complete anticipations for any claims. For less relevant prior art a lower retrieval ratio is
acceptable.
Orientation and Subject of the International Search
Analysis of the Claims
15.21 When taking up an international application to be searched, the examiner first
considers the application in order to determine the subject of the claimed invention, taking
account of the guidance given below and in Chapter 5. For this purpose, the examiner
makes a critical analysis of the claims in the light of the description and drawings.
Article 15(3); Rule 33.3(a)
15.22 The international search is directed to the invention defined by the claims, as
interpreted with due regard to the description and drawings (if any) and with particular
emphasis on the inventive concept towards which the claims are directed. See Chapter 5 for
the relationship between the disclosure and the claims.
Rule 43.6bis, Rule 91.1
15.23 Since the applicant is not permitted to amend the claims before receiving the
international search report, except to rectify obvious mistakes or to correct formal matters
which are contrary to the PCT and are called to the applicant’s attention by the receiving
Office, the international search is directed to the claims as filed. See paragraph 15.25. This
is subject to the exception where the rectification of an obvious mistake in the claims is
authorized by the International Searching Authority according to Rules 91.1(b)(ii), (c) and (d)
before it has begun to draw up the international search report, in which case the rectified
claims are taken into account in the search and the international search report shall so
indicate (Rule 43.6bis) (see paragraphs 8.18 and 8.19).
Inventions for Which No Fees Have Been Paid
Article 17(3)(a)
15.24 When the claims of the international application do not relate to one invention only,
nor to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept, the
applicant may be invited (with Form PCT/ISA/206, see paragraphs 10.60 to 10.65) to pay
additional search fees. If the applicant does not pay any additional search fees in response
to the invitation, the international search will, except in the circumstances referred to in
paragraphs 10.64 and 10.65, be restricted to those parts that relate to the invention, or so

Page 128
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

linked group of inventions, first mentioned in the claims. If additional fees have been paid
within the prescribed time limit, those parts that relate to the inventions covered thereby must
also be searched (see Chapter 10).
Full Coverage
Rule 33.3(b)
15.25 In principle, and insofar as possible and reasonable, the international search
should cover the entire subject matter to which the claims are directed or to which they might
reasonably be expected to be directed after they have been amended. For example, where
an international application relating to an electric circuit contains one or more claims only
directed to the function and manner of operation, and the description and drawings include
an example with a detailed non-trivial transistor circuit, the search must necessarily include
this circuit. Nevertheless, reasons of economy may make certain restrictions of the
international search necessary, for example, when there is a broad claim and many
examples and it is not possible to foresee which will be the subject of amended claims.
Speculative Claims
15.26 No special search effort need be made for searching unduly wide or speculative
claims, beyond the extent to which they are supported by the description. For example, if in
an international application relating to and describing in detail an automatic telephone
exchange, the claims are directed to an automatic communication switching center, the
international search should not be extended to automatic telegraph exchanges, data
switching centers, etc., merely because of the broad wording of the claim, except if it is
probable that such an extended search could produce a document on the basis of which a
reasonable objection as regards lack of novelty or inventive step could be established.
Likewise, if a claim is directed to a process for manufacturing an “impedance element” but
the description and drawings, relate only to the manufacture of a resistor element, and give
no indication as to how other types of impedance elements could be manufactured by the
process of the claimed invention, extension of the search to embrace, say, manufacture of
capacitors, would not normally be justified. However, if a meaningful search based on a
claim that is not supported by the description can be carried out without much increase in
effort, the search should be extended to cover the claimed subject matter that is not
supported by the description if the scope of the claim is not unduly wide.
Dependent Claims
15.27 The international search carried out for the independent claim(s) must also take
into consideration the subject matter of all dependent claims. Dependent claims are
interpreted as being restricted by all features of the claim(s) upon which they depend.
Therefore, where the subject matter of the independent claim is novel, that of the dependent
claims is also considered novel for the purpose of international search. When the novelty
and inventive step of the independent claim are apparent as a result of the international
search, there is no need to make a further search in respect of the subject matter of the
dependent claims as such.
15.28 However, where the novelty or inventive step of the main claim is questioned, it
may be necessary for assessing inventive step of a dependent claim to establish whether the
features of the dependent claim as such are novel by expanding the field of search. No
special search should be made for features that are so well known that documentary
evidence seems to be unnecessary; however, if a handbook or other document showing that
a feature is generally known can be found rapidly, it should be cited. When the dependent
claim adds a further feature (rather than providing more detail of an element figuring already
in the main claim), the dependent claim in effect constitutes a combination claim and should
be dealt with accordingly (see paragraph 15.31).

Page 129
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Search of Particular Claim Types and Features

15.29 The words of a claim must be read as they would be understood by a person
skilled in the art in accordance with the meaning and scope which they normally have in the
relevant art. See paragraphs 15.20 to 15.28 for guidelines regarding interpretation of
particular claim types and features.
15.30 In two-part claims as defined by Rule 6.3(b) (known as “Jepson claims” under the
practice of some Authorities), the claimed invention includes the limitations of the preamble
in combination with the limitations in the characterizing portion of the claim. In these cases,
the preamble is regarded as a limitation on the scope of the claim (see paragraph 5.22). In
certain circumstances, it may be desirable to extend the subject matter of the international
search to include the “technological background” of the claimed invention. This would
include:
(i) the preamble portion of the claim, that is, the part preceding the expression
“characterized by” or “the improvement comprising”;
(ii) the state of the prior art as explained in the introduction of the description of
the international application but not identified by specific citations; and
(iii) the general technological background of the invention (often called “general
state of the art”).
Combination of Elements
15.31 For claims characterized by a combination of elements (for example, A, B and C),
the international search should be directed towards the combination; however, when
searching classification units (see Chapter 7) for this purpose, sub-combinations, including
the elements individually (for example, AB, AC, BC and also A, B and C separately), should
be searched in those units at the same time. A search in additional classification units either
for sub-combinations or for individual elements of the combination should only be performed
if this is still necessary for establishing the novelty of the element in order to assess the
inventive step of the combination.
Different Categories of Claim
15.32 When the international application contains claims of different categories that
comply with the unity requirement (see Chapter 10), all these must be included in the
international search. When the international application contains only claims of one
category, it may be desirable to include other categories in the search. A reference
describing a process of making a product but only claiming the product itself might only be
classified in a subclass directed to the product and not be cross-referenced in a subclass
directed to the process. Accordingly, when searching for a particular process of making a
product it may be necessary to search for the product in order to discover the best prior art
disclosing the process of making the product. As such, for example, except when the
international application contains indications to the contrary, one may generally assume that
in a claim directed to a chemical process, the starting products form part of the state of the
art and need not be searched; the intermediate products will only be searched when they
form the subject of one or more claims; but it is highly recommended that the final products
always be searched, except when they are evidently known, since the most relevant prior art
may only be classified in terms of the final products.
Cases Where No Meaningful Search Is Possible
Article 17(2)(a); Rules 39, 43bis.1, 66.2(a)(v)
15.33 The examiner, in general, excludes from the international search subject matter for
which no searches are to be carried out, or for which no meaningful search can be made;
this may result, for example, from the fact that certain subject matter may be excluded from
the search under Rule 39, or from exceptional situations where no search at all is possible
for a particular claim(s) (see paragraph 15.12 and Chapter 9). The examiner indicates in

Page 130
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

either Box No. II of Form PCT/ISA/210 (International Search Report) or Form PCT/ISA/203
(Declaration of Non-Establishment of International Search Report), as appropriate, the
reasons for which no international search is established in respect of the relevant claims. In
Box No. III of Form PCT/ISA/237 (Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority;
see paragraphs 17.09, 17.33 and 17.34), it will then usually be sufficient to indicate that no
international search report has been established for the relevant claims as the reason for not
establishing an opinion on novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability and refer to the
international search report or declaration for further details.
Obvious Mistakes and Expressions, Etc., Not to be Used (Rule 9)
Rules 9.1, 9.2, 91.1, 33.3(b); Sections 217, 511(a)(v)
15.34 If the examiner notices any obvious mistake in the international application, the
International Searching Authority may invite (optionally using Form PCT/ISA/216, see
paragraph 8.13) the applicant to request the rectification of the error.
15.35 Similarly, if the International Searching Authority notes matter not to be used as
defined in Rule 9.1, such as matter contrary to public order (“ordre public”) or morality or
disparaging statements which ought to be omitted from the international application as
published, it suggests to the applicant, with Form PCT/ISA/218, that the applicant voluntarily
correct the international application and notifies the receiving Office and the International
Bureau accordingly. 1 Note that any such correction must not introduce new matter. If the
applicant does not make the requested corrections within the indicated time limit, the
examiner proceeds with international search and examination covering subject matter to
which the claims might reasonably be expected to be directed after correction. However, it
should be recognized that if the applicant does not make the requested corrections, the
International Bureau may omit the noted matter from the publication of the international
application, in accordance with Article 21(6).
15.36 Any decision on a rectification under Rule 91.1 (Form PCT/ISA/217) or any
correction aimed at complying with Rule 9.1 must be transmitted to the International Bureau;
corrections aimed at complying with Rule 9.1 must also be transmitted to the receiving
Office.
Information Meeting the Criteria of Rule 48.2(l)
15.36A The International Searching Authority is not obliged to check whether the
international application or other documents contain any information meeting the criteria of
Rule 48.2(l). If the International Searching Authority notes, however, that the international
application or any other document contains information which appears to meet those criteria,
it may suggest to the applicant to request the International Bureau to omit this information
from international publication (using Form PCT/ISA/215).
Access to the File held by the International Searching Authority
15.36B Where the International Bureau has notified the International Searching Authority
(by way of Form PCT/IB/385) that it has omitted information from international publication or
public file access, that Authority must not provide access to that information, and where
applicable, to Form PCT/ISA/215, Form PCT/IB/385 and any replaced sheet submitted with
Form PCT/IB/385 to any person other than the applicant or a person authorized by him. The
International Searching Authority may provide access to any replacement sheet(s) received
from the International Bureau accompanying Form PCT/IB/385.

1
Where applicable, the International Bureau informs any competent Authority specified for supplementary
search.

Page 131
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Search Strategy
Preliminary Steps
15.37 Documents cited in the international application should be examined if they are
cited as the starting point of the invention, or as showing the state of the art, or as alternative
solutions to the problem concerned, or when they are necessary for a correct understanding
of the application; however, when such citations clearly relate only to details not directly
relevant to the claimed invention, they may be disregarded. If the international application
cites a document that is not published or otherwise not accessible to the International
Searching Authority and the document appears essential to a correct understanding of the
invention to the extent that a meaningful international search would not be possible without
knowledge of the content of that document, the International Searching Authority may
postpone the search and request the applicant to provide first a copy of the document, if
possible to do so within the time limits for the preparation of the international search report
under the PCT. If no copy of the document is received, the International Searching Authority
should first attempt to carry out the international search and then, if necessary, indicate that
no meaningful search could be carried out in total or that the search needed to be restricted.
Abstract and Title
Rules 37, 38
15.38 The examiner then considers the abstract (together with the title of the invention
and the figure of the drawings to be published with the abstract) in relation to the
requirements of the Regulations under the PCT (see paragraph 16.37). Since the abstract
should relate to the international application as filed, the examiner should consider it and
determine its definitive contents no later than the completion of the international search
report. Under certain circumstances (see paragraph 15.40), the examiner will have to
establish the abstract and/or title, and/or select the figure to accompany the abstract for
publication purposes. Such abstract is established in the language in which the international
application is to be published or, if a translation into another language was transmitted under
Rule 23.1(b) and the International Searching Authority so wishes, in the language of that
translation.
Classification
15.39 The examiner, after having considered the abstract, if any, then classifies the
international application according to at least the International Patent Classification (IPC)
(see Chapter 7).
Publication Prior to Search
Rules 8.2, 37.2, 38.2
15.40 If publication of the international application is due before the international search
has been established, the examiner must, upon request by the International Bureau,
establish the classification of the application before the search is carried out; the examiner,
at the same time, examines the abstract (together with the title and selected figure) for the
purpose of publication. This examination of the abstract does not go beyond ensuring that it
relates to the application concerned and that no conflict exists with the title of the invention or
with the classification of the application. If at that time no abstract, title or figure selection
has been provided by the applicant, the examiner does so. No abstract or title need be
established where the International Searching Authority received a notification from the
receiving Office to the effect that the applicant has been invited to furnish an abstract and/or
title. Subject to the above, if the international search report is published later than the date of
publication of the international application, the abstract published with the application will be
as filed and the definitive abstract will be published together with the international search
report.

Page 132
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Search Statement
Article 17(2)(a)
15.41 Having determined the subject of the invention, as outlined in paragraphs 15.21
to 15.23, it may be desirable for the examiner to prepare first a written search statement,
defining the subject of his search as precisely as possible. In many instances, one or more
of the claims may themselves serve this purpose, but they may have to be generalized in
order to cover all aspects and embodiments of the invention. At this time, the considerations
relating to the exclusion from international search (see Chapter 9) and to lack of unity of
invention (see Chapter 10) should be borne in mind. The examiner may also have to restrict
the international search in exceptional situations because no search at all is possible (see
paragraphs 9.19, 9.26 to 9.30 and 9.40); but the examiner should not do this if it can be
avoided (see paragraphs 9.17 and 9.19 to 9.25). Any restrictions of the international search
on these grounds should be indicated in the international search report. If no search is
made, a declaration should be issued under Article 17(2)(a).
15.42 The claims should be construed and searched having particular regard to the
various types and forms of claims used, such as two-part claims and product-by-process
claims (see paragraphs 15.21 to 15.33).
Field of Search
Rule 34
15.43 The International Searching Authority carrying out the international search
endeavors to discover as much of the relevant prior art as its facilities permit, and, in any
case, consults the appropriate minimum documentation specified in Rule 34, and considers
relevant databases or other search resources such as those listed in the Search Guidance
Intellectual Property Digital Library (IPDL), which appears on the WIPO web site
(www.wipo.int).
Rule 43.6(b)
15.44 Thus, the International Searching Authority in searching an international
application, in principle, consults all documents within the field of search that exists in the
search files or databases, irrespective of their language or age, or of the type of document.
Nevertheless, the examiner should, for reasons of economy, exercise appropriate judgment,
based on his knowledge of the technology in question and of the documentation involved, to
omit segments of the search file or databases in which the likelihood of finding any
documents relevant to the international search is very small, for example, documents falling
within a period preceding the time when the area of technology in question began to develop.
Similarly the examiner need only consult one member of a patent family unless there is good
reason to suppose that, in a particular case, there are relevant substantial differences in the
content of different members of the same family or because only another member of a patent
family was published before the international filing date and must therefore be cited in the
first place.
Rule 33.2(a), (b)
15.45 The international search is carried out on the basis of the search files or databases
which may contain material pertinent to the claimed invention. It covers all directly relevant
technical fields within the PCT minimum documentation. The search may then have to be
extended to include other listed resources or databases, such as those listed in the Search
Guidance IPDL, or to analogous fields, but the need for this must be judged by the examiner
in each individual case, taking into account the outcome of the search in the initial fields.
See paragraph 15.61.
15.46 The question of which of the listed relevant search resources, including the
databases listed in the Search Guidance IPDL, are to be consulted in a given area of
technology must be judged by the examiner in each individual case. Classification places to
be included in the international search should be selected in all directly relevant fields and, if
necessary, in analogous fields. The examiner should consider all relevant search resources

Page 133
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

for the technology field and determine those most appropriate for the international
application. Search resources listed in the Search Guidance IPDL relevant to the technical
areas may provide a useful guide for relevance to the application at hand. This includes, for
example, specialized search systems, abstracting journals, and on-line databases. Where
searches are made by using the IPC, the selection of classification places in analogous fields
should be limited to:
(i) higher subdivisions allowing searching by abstraction (generalization)
inasmuch as this is justified from a technical viewpoint, and
(ii) parallel subdivisions, bearing in mind the fact that the fields in question will
become increasingly unrelated.
15.47 Often various search strategies are possible that are relevant to the subject matter
of the application. The examiner should exercise judgment based on experience and
knowledge of the search resources, to select the search strategies most appropriate to the
case in hand, and establish the order in which various strategies (that is, classification
places, databases, and other resources) are to be consulted accordingly. This process
should give precedence to the main technical field of the international application, and to the
search resources and strategies in which the probability of finding relevant documents is
highest.
Analogous Fields
15.48 The field of search should, where appropriate, include analogous fields to the
extent they are consistent with the description and drawings.
Rule 33.2(c)
15.49 The question of which arts are, in any given case, to be regarded as analogous is
considered in the light of what appears to be the necessary function or use of the claimed
invention and not only the specific functions expressly indicated in the international
application.
15.50 In determining analogous fields into which the search should be extended, it is
useful to give consideration to:
(i) fields in which the same or similar structure would be expected by a person
skilled in the art to be employed in different work or use;
(ii) fields to which a generic concept of claimed features pertains;
(iii) art within the field of the inventor’s endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the inventor was involved;
(iv) fields relevant to the function or utility inherent in the subject matter covered
by the claims, that is, the field to which the application is most likely to be applied would be
searched in addition to the general field of the subject matter.
15.51 The decision to extend the international search to fields not mentioned in the
international application must be left to the judgment of the examiner, who should not try to
imagine all the kinds of applications of the claimed invention that might have been envisioned
by the inventor. The overriding principle in determining the extension of the search in
analogous fields should be whether it is possible that a reasonable objection that there is a
lack of inventive step could be established on the basis of what is likely to be found by the
search in these fields.
Conducting the Search
15.52 The examiner carries out the international search, directing attention to any prior
art likely to have bearing on novelty or inventive step. In addition, the examiner is
encouraged to cite any prior art likely to be of assistance in determining sufficiency of
description through the whole of the field claimed, per paragraphs 5.52 and 5.53 and the
requirement that the claimed invention be fully supported by the description, per paragraphs

Page 134
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

5.54 to 5.58. The examiner should also note any documents that may be of importance for
other reasons, such as documents putting doubt upon the validity of any priority claimed,
contributing to a better or more correct understanding of the claimed invention, or illustrating
the technological background, but the examiner should not spend time in searching for these
documents, nor in the consideration of such matters unless there is a special reason for
doing so in a particular case. Documents which do not qualify as prior art because they
post-date the claimed invention may nevertheless be cited to show a universal fact, such as
characteristics or properties of a material, or a specific scientific fact, or to show the level of
ordinary skill in the art.
15.53 The examiner should concentrate the search efforts on the search resources and
strategies in which the probability of finding highly relevant documents is greatest. Where
the examiner intends to cite any prior art likely to be of assistance in determining sufficiency
of description, while conducting a search in a relevant area, the examiner should identify all
documents, regardless of publication dates, which are highly relevant to the determination of
novelty, inventive step, adequacy of support, and industrial applicability of the claimed
invention. The examiner should always take account of the search results already obtained
in considering whether to extend the search (that is, consult additional databases, broaden a
search query, or include additional classification places).
15.54 The examiner typically conducts a search of the patent literature first. In certain art
areas, such as those identified in the Search Guidance IPDL (see paragraph 5.43), a search
of the non-patent literature may be necessary. However, regardless of the art being
searched, if little or no relevant patent prior art is located, the examiner should consider
broadening the resources searched to include databases containing non-patent literature.
15.55 Note that no special search should be made for features that are instantly and
unquestionably demonstrable as being well known such that documentary evidence seems
unnecessary. Preferably, however, a handbook or other document showing that a feature is
generally known should be cited if practicable.
Security of Searching Using the Internet
15.56 When conducting a search on an international application, it may be necessary to
make use of the Internet as a search tool. According to Rule 42.1, the international
application must be searched within three months of receipt of the search copy by the
International Searching Authority (or nine months after the priority date, if this expires later),
and the receiving Office must usually forward the search copy to the International Searching
Authority within one month of the international filing date (Rule 23.1(a)). This means that
where the full priority year is claimed, the search will usually have to be performed at the very
latest, within 16 months of the priority and consequently before international publication
according to Article 21(2)(a). Where the international application has not yet been published
at the time of the search, there exists the danger that search terms used in the search on
non-secure Internet search engines or in databases available on the Internet may be
observed by third parties. This may reveal details of the application before it is published,
which is clearly undesirable. It should be stressed that it is common practice for Internet
sites to keep records of queries, which result in their retrieval. This is particularly dangerous
to the applicant, where the web site retrieved belongs to a competitor.
15.57 All web sites must be treated as non-secure unless the Authority has a commercial
arrangement with a service provider in order to maintain confidentiality and a secure
connection to that web site is used.
15.58 Consequently, extreme caution must be exercised when using the Internet as a
search tool where (as in most cases) the international application has not yet been
published. Where a relevant database is accessible via the Internet, but an alternative
secure connection to the same database is accessible by the International Searching
Authority, the secure connection must be used.

Page 135
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

15.59 Where no secure connection to a database on the Internet is available to the

International Searching Authority, the search may be conducted on the Internet using
generalized search terms representing combinations of features that relate to the claimed
invention, which have already been shown to exist in the state of the art.
No Documents Found
15.60 If no documents of a more relevant nature for assessing novelty and inventive step
are available, the examiner should consider citing the documents most relevant to the
“technological background” of the invention which have been noted during the international
search. Generally speaking, no special search effort should be undertaken for this purpose.
However, the examiner may exercise discretion here in special cases. In exceptional cases,
an international search may be completed without any relevant document having been found.
Stopping Search
15.61 Reasons of economy dictate that the examiner use appropriate judgment to end
the search when the probability of discovering further relevant prior art becomes very low in
relation to the effort needed. The international search may also be stopped when one or
more documents have been found clearly demonstrating lack of novelty in the entire subject
matter to which the claims are directed or to which they might reasonably be expected to be
directed, apart from features the application of which would not involve an inventive step and
which are instantly and unquestionably demonstrable as being well known in the field under
consideration such that documentary evidence seems to be unnecessary. Accordingly, the
examiner should not stop the search if lack of novelty is demonstrated for only a limited
number of claimed embodiments, even though this would lead to an objection of lack of
novelty in the written opinion. The examiner may continue searching if there are any
outstanding issues regarding the requirement for a clear and complete description of the
claimed invention so as to enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention
through the whole of the field claimed, the requirement that the claimed invention be fully
supported by the description, or the requirement of industrial applicability and these issues
could be clarified by additional prior art. See paragraph 15.52. Where the document is an
Internet disclosure and doubts exist with regard to its publication date (such that it is not clear
if it was published before the relevant date according to Rule 64.1), the examiner should
continue the search as though that Internet disclosure had not been retrieved.
Recording the Search
Rule 43.6(b), (c)
15.62 In recording the search history of the International Search, the examiner, lists the
classification identification of the fields searched. If the IPC is not used for this purpose, the
classification used is indicated. See paragraph 16.49. Depending on the policy of an
International Searching Authority, the examiner may find it useful to record the search history
in sufficient detail to allow examiners of national stage applications to fully interpret and rely
upon the international search. This includes recording the details of any patent and
non-patent literature searches as well as searches conducted on the Internet, including the
key words and query operators, expressed as complete search queries to the extent
practical, logic employed as the basis of a text search which resulted in the discovery of prior
art, or the amino acid or nucleic acid sequence employed as the basis of a sequence search
and the sequence alignment corresponding to prior art cited in the international search report
that was obtained from the sequence search, or the chemical structure employed as the
basis of a chemical structure search or details of other non-classification or non-text
searches performed. See paragraphs 16.53 to 16.62 for additional guidance on recordation
of the search history. The recorded search history should also include any query used in any
of the foregoing searches. Provision of the actual search query from these search histories
is generally easily accomplished by direct printing of the search query from the automated
system used to construct and perform the search query from a given electronic search
resource. Where an electronic database is used, the name of the database should be

Page 136
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

provided; the actual search queries used may also be useful information that, depending on
the policy of the International Searching Authority, may be provided and made available to
examiners of national stage applications if practical. Examiners are also encouraged to
record the search history to include the details of searches used to determine compliance
with the requirements of novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, support, sufficiency,
or other appropriate requirements. However, unless required at the option of the
International Searching Authority, there is no requirement to include all details of patent and
non-patent literature searches that were performed during the search process.
Evaluating the Prior Art
15.63 The examiner makes a determination of whether the claimed invention meets the
standards for novelty and inventive step as set out in Chapters 12 and 13.
Matters of Doubt Regarding Relevant Prior Art
15.64 Since the final decision with respect to novelty is not the responsibility of the
International Searching Authority but of the designated Offices, the International Searching
Authorities should not discard documents merely because of doubt as regards, for example,
the exact date of publication or public availability, or the exact contents of an oral disclosure,
exhibition, etc., to which such documents may refer. The International Searching Authority
should try to remove any doubt that may exist and should cite the documents concerned in
the international search report unless the date of publication or of public availability of the
document concerned is clearly the same as, or later than, the filing date of the international
application. Additional documents providing evidence in matters of doubt may be cited.
Where the date of the reference is not clearly established, the examiner should cite the
document as a category “L” document (see paragraph 16.75) and indicate in the search
report that the exact date of publication has not been established.
15.65 Any indication in a document of the date of its publication should be accepted by
the International Searching Authority as correct unless evidence to the contrary shows a
different publication date. If the indicated date of publication is insufficiently precise (for
example, because a year or year and month only are given) to establish whether publication
was before the filing date of the international application, the International Searching
Authority should endeavor to establish the exact date with sufficient precision for that
purpose. A date of receipt stamped on the document, or a reference in another document,
which must then be cited, may be of assistance in this respect.
Excluded Subject Matter
15.66 Special attention should be paid to the evaluation of prior art documents when
assessing subject matter which may be excluded from the international search. If, in the
Office acting as International Searching Authority, such subject matter is considered matter
excluded under Article 17(2)(a)(i), the category symbol (see paragraphs 16.65 to 16.75) is
assigned based on the subject matter which might reasonably be expected to be claimed by
amendment. Where other claims appearing in the international application are directed to
non-excluded subject matter, the assessment of subject matter which might reasonably be
expected to be claimed by amendment should be made taking into account the subject
matter of the non-excluded claims. If, on the other hand, in the Office acting as International
Searching Authority, such subject matter is non-excluded, the category symbol is assigned
based on the claims appearing in the international application.
Selection of Citations and Identifying Most Relevant Portions
Rule 43.5(c); Section 505
15.67 After completion of the international search, the examiner should select, from the
documents retrieved, the ones to be cited in the international search report. These should
always include the most relevant documents, which will be specially characterized in the
report. Less relevant documents should only be cited when they concern aspects or details
of the claimed invention not found in the documents already selected for citation. In cases of

Page 137
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

doubt or borderline cases in relation to novelty or inventive step, the examiner should readily
make citations in order to give the applicant, the designated Offices and the International
Preliminary Examining Authority the opportunity to consider the matter more fully.

15.68 If the International Bureau transmits a third party observation to the International
Searching Authority in time to be taken into account in drawing up the international search
report, any prior art referred to in the observation should also be considered for inclusion as if
it had been found by the examiner as part of the search, provided that either a copy of the
prior art is included or it is otherwise immediately available to the examiner. The examiner
need only refer to the prior art listed in the observation if it is considered relevant for inclusion
in the international search report.
Rule 43.5(b) to (e); Section 507(g)
15.69 To avoid increasing costs unnecessarily, the examiner should not cite more
documents than are necessary, and therefore when there are several documents of equal
relevance, the international search report should not normally cite more than one of them.
When more than one member of the same patent family is present in a search file, the
examiner, in selecting from these documents for citation, should pay regard to language
convenience, and preferably cite (or at least note) documents in the language of the
international application. Also, due regard should be paid to the possible need of the
designated Offices to translate cited documents. Therefore, the examiner should, whenever
possible, identify precisely the part or passage of a cited document which is relevant by, for
example, indicating also the page and paragraph or lines where the relevant passage
appears. Where the cited document is a patent document in a language other than English
and another member of the same patent family is available in English, the examiner should
preferably also indicate the corresponding part or passage of the English member of the
patent family.
15.70 As a general rule, the examiner will select for citation only documents which are
present in the search files of the International Searching Authority or to which access is
readily available in some other manner; in that way no doubt will exist about the contents of
the documents cited, since the examiner will generally have consulted each document cited.
Section 507(g), (h)
15.71 However, under certain circumstances a document whose contents have not been
verified may be cited, provided there is justification for the assumption that there is identity of
contents with another document which the examiner has inspected and cited. Both
documents should then be mentioned in the international search report. For example,
instead of the document published before the international filing date in an inconvenient
language and selected for citation, the examiner may have inspected a corresponding
document (for example, another member of the same patent family, or a translation of an
article) in a more convenient language and possibly published after the international filing
date (see also paragraph 16.75). Also the examiner may assume that, in the absence of
explicit indications to the contrary, the contents of an abstract of a document are contained in
that original document. Also the examiner should assume that the contents of a report of an
oral disclosure are in agreement with that disclosure.
15.72 Before citing documents in a language with which the examiner is not familiar, the
examiner should be satisfied that the document is relevant (for example, through translation
by a colleague, through a corresponding document or abstract in a familiar language,
through a drawing, or chemical formula in the document).
Procedure After Searching
Preparation of the International Search Report
15.73 Finally, the examiner should prepare the international search report and the written
opinion (see Chapters 16 and 17).

Page 138
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Amended International Search Reports

15.74 It may happen occasionally that, after completion of an international search report,
the International Searching Authority discovers further relevant documents (for example, in a
later search for a related application). These should be added to the international search
report up to the time of completion of the technical preparations for its publication by the
International Bureau. An amended international search report should be sent to the
applicant and to the International Bureau promptly. Thereafter, if within two years from the
priority date of the international application the International Searching Authority should
become aware of any particularly relevant document, it should amend the international
search report and mark the report clearly as “amended.” The International Searching
Authority should then send a copy of the amended report to the applicant and another copy
to the International Bureau for subsequent communication to the designated Offices and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Receipt of Misdirected Article 19 Amendments
Article 19
15.75 Where the International Searching Authority, after transmittal of the international
search report, receives from the applicant by mistake amendments to the claims under
Article 19, it should transmit them promptly to the International Bureau, with which they
should have been filed, and inform the applicant accordingly.
Supplementary International Search
15.76 Supplementary international search is an optional service offered in accordance
with Rule 45bis by those International Searching Authorities which have decided to offer the
service. It is intended as a supplement to the main international search, recognizing the fact
that no search can be completely exhaustive, and is particularly relevant to the situation
where the Authority conducting the supplementary international search has particular
language specializations which may not be available in the International Searching Authority
which conducts the main international search.
Rule 45bis.5(h), 45bis.9
15.77 Many of the details of the service provided are decided by the Authority which is to
carry out the supplementary international search. The scope of the service offered may be
subject to limitations and conditions, for example, limitations as to subject matter, limitations
as to the number of such searches to be carried out by the Authority, and limitations as to the
number of claims which will be searched. The scope is defined in an annex to the
agreement between the International Bureau and the International Authority. Details are
published in the PCT Applicant’s Guide, Annex SISA.
Requesting Supplementary International Search
Rules 45bis.1, 45bis.4
15.78 If the applicant wishes a supplementary international search to be carried out, he
must submit a request to the International Bureau within 22 months from the priority date and
pay the relevant fees within one month of submitting the request. It is expected that a
request for supplementary international search will usually only be made after the applicant
has seen and considered the main international search report, but this is not a requirement.
15.79 If the request is valid and all the fees and necessary additional items (translations
and copies of sequence listings in electronic form) are provided, the International Bureau will,
once it has received the international search report or after the expiration of 17 months from
the priority date, whichever occurs first, transmit to the Authority specified for supplementary
search a copy of each of the following:
(i) the supplementary search request;
(ii) the international application;

Page 139
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(iii) any sequence listing furnished with the request for supplementary
international search;
(iv) any translation furnished by the applicant which is to be used as the basis of
the supplementary international search;
and, at the same time or promptly after their later receipt by the International Bureau:
(v) the international search report and the written opinion established under
Rule 43bis.1;
(vi) any invitation by the International Searching Authority to pay additional fees
referred to in Article 17(3)(a); and
(vii) any protest by the applicant under Rule 40.2(c) and the decision thereon by
the review body constituted in the framework of the International Searching Authority.
Receipt of the Request for Supplementary International Search by the Authority
Section 519
15.80 On receipt of the request for supplementary international search, the Authority
promptly sends an acknowledgement of receipt of the copy of the international application to
the applicant and to the International Bureau using Form PCT/SISA/506.
Rules 45bis.3(e) and 45bis.5(g)
15.81 If, whether prior to or following acknowledgement of receipt of the request for
supplementary international search, the Authority finds that carrying out the search is
excluded by a limitation or condition specified in the agreement between the Authority and
the International Bureau , other than a limitation under Article 17(2) as applicable by virtue of
Rule 45bis.5(c), the Authority considers the request not to have been submitted, in which
case it notifies the applicant and the International Bureau accordingly using
Form PCT/SISA/507 and refunds the supplementary search fee to the extent specified by the
agreement, using Form PCT/SISA/508 to notify the repayment.
Start of Supplementary International Search
Rule 45bis.5(a)
15.82 The Authority specified for supplementary search normally starts the
supplementary international search promptly on receipt of the documents indicated in items
(i) to (iv) of paragraph 15.79, above. However, the Authority may, at its option, delay the
start of the search until it has also received the international search report and written opinion
of the International Searching Authority, or until the expiration of 22 months from the priority
date, whichever occurs first.
Rule 45bis.4(f)
15.83 If the written opinion of the main International Searching Authority is not in either
English or a language accepted by the Authority specified for supplementary search, the
Authority may request the International Bureau to provide a translation into English, which is
transmitted within two months of the date of receipt of the request.
Withdrawal of the Request for Supplementary International Search
Rules 45bis.3(d), 90bis.3bis, 90bis.6(b-bis); Section 520
15.84 The applicant may withdraw the request for supplementary international search at
any time before the transmittal to the applicant of the supplementary international search
report or the declaration that no such report will be established. Withdrawal shall be effective
on receipt, within this time limit, of a notice addressed by the applicant, at his option, to the
Authority specified for supplementary search or to the International Bureau, provided that,
where the notice does not reach the Authority specified for supplementary search in sufficient
time to prevent the transmittal of the report or declaration, the communication of that report
or declaration under Article 20(1), as applicable by virtue of Rule 45bis.8(b), shall
nevertheless be effected. In this case, processing of the supplementary international search

Page 140
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

should stop. There is no general obligation for the Authority to refund the supplementary
search fee at this stage (the fee will be refunded by the International Bureau if the withdrawal
occurs before any documents are sent to the Authority), but Authorities may offer full or
partial refunds according to internal practice. Such policy may be set out in the section of the
Agreement with the International Bureau under Article 16(3)(b) dealing with refunds. If the
notice of withdrawal is received directly from the applicant, rather than from the International
Bureau, the Authority should mark the notice with the date on which it was received and
promptly transmit a copy to the International Bureau.
Basis of the Supplementary International Search
Rule 45bis.5
15.85 Although the applicant will often have had an opportunity to file amended claims
under Article 19 (and sometimes under Article 34 in case a demand has been filed) by the
time that the supplementary search is carried out, the supplementary search is performed on
the basis of the international application as filed (or a translation thereof) so that it is easier
for a truly complementary search to be performed and for the results to be considered
together by the applicant or a designated Office.
Rules 13ter, 45bis.5(c)
15.86 If the application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide and/or amino acid
sequences but does not contain a sequence listing complying with the relevant standard (see
paragraph 4.15), the Authority may invite the applicant (with Form PCT/SISA/504) to furnish,
within a fixed time limit, a sequence listing in written form and/or in electronic form complying
with the standard for purposes of completion of the supplementary international search. If the
applicant complies with the invitation, the Authority proceeds with the completion of the
supplementary international search on the basis of the written and/or electronic forms of the
sequence listing provided. Any sequence listing not contained in the international application
as filed will not, subject to Article 34, form part of the international application, but will only be
used as a search tool. If the applicant does not comply with the invitation within the time limit
or if the response to the invitation does not comply with the standard, the Authority is not
required to carry out the supplementary international search to the extent that such
non-compliance has the result that a meaningful search cannot be carried out (see
paragraph 15.87(i)).
Claims Excluded from Supplementary International Search
Rule 45bis.5(c)-(e)
15.87 In addition to limitation of the supplementary international search due to a lack of
unity of invention (see paragraph 15.89, below), the supplementary search may exclude:
Rule 45bis.5(c)
(i) any claims which would not be the subject of international search by the
Authority carrying out the supplementary search, whether for reasons of clarity, subject
matter or failure to provide, after a warning and opportunity to comply, a sequence listing in
an appropriate form (see paragraphs 15.12 and 15.33);
Rule 45bis.5(d), (e)
(ii) where the international search report or a declaration under Article 17(2)(a)
has been established before the start of the supplementary search, any claims which were
not the subject of the international search.
Rule 45bis.5(h), 45bis.9(a), (c)
(iii) certain claims, in accordance with a limitation or condition specified in the
agreement between the Authority and the International Bureau under Article 16(3)(b) (in
particular limitations to the effect that supplementary international searches will not extend to
any claim beyond a certain number of claims."
15.88 If exclusions referred to in paragraph 15.87(i) or (ii) mean that no supplementary
international search report will be established, the Authority so declares and promptly notifies

Page 141
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the applicant and the International Bureau using Form PCT/SISA/502. On the other hand, if
some claims are excluded, but a supplementary search report is nevertheless established,
the limitations are indicated in Box No. II of the supplementary international search report
(Form PCT/SISA/501).
Expressions, Etc., Not to Be Used
Rules 9.1, 9.2; Section 217
15.88A If the Authority specified for supplementary search notes matter not to be used as
defined in Rule 9.1, such as matter contrary to public order (“ordre public”) or morality or
disparaging statements which ought to be omitted from the international application as
published, it suggests to the applicant, with Form PCT/SISA/511, that the applicant
voluntarily correct the international application and notifies the receiving Office, the
International Searching Authority and the International Bureau accordingly. Note that any
such correction must not introduce new matter. If the applicant does not make the requested
corrections within the indicated time limit, the examiner proceeds with supplementary
international search covering subject matter to which the claims might reasonably be
expected to be directed after correction. Any correction aimed at complying with Rule 9.1
must be transmitted by the Authority specified for supplementary search to the receiving
Office, the International Searching Authority and the International Bureau.
Information Meeting the Criteria of Rule 48.2(l)
15.88B The Authority specified for supplementary search is not obliged to check whether
the international application or other documents contain any information which appear to
meet the criteria of Rule 48.2(l). If the Authority specified for supplementary search notes,
however, that the international application or any other document contains information which
appears to meet those criteria, it may suggest to the applicant to request the International
Bureau to omit this information from international publication (using Form PCT/SISA/512).
Access to the File held by the Authority Specified for Supplementary Search
15.88C Where the International Bureau has notified the Authority specified for
supplementary search (by way of Form PCT/IB/385) that it has omitted information from
international publication or public file access, that Authority must not provide access to that
information, and where applicable, to Form PCT/SISA/512, Form PCT/IB/385 and any
replaced sheet submitted with Form PCT/IB/385 to any person other than the applicant or a
person authorized by him. The Authority specified for supplementary search may provide
access to any replacement sheet(s) received from the International Bureau accompanying
Form PCT/IB/385.
Unity of Invention
Rules 45bis.5(b), 45bis.6
15.89 Unlike the case for the main international search, no opportunity is offered to pay
additional fees in case it is found that the international application lacks unity of invention.
Rather, the supplementary international search report is immediately established on those
parts of the international application which relate to the main invention. Normally, this will
mean the invention first mentioned in the claims. However, the examiner should also
consider the following in determining whether there is unity of invention and, if so, what is
considered to be the main invention:
Rule 45bis.6(b)
(i) though not bound by the views of the International Searching Authority, due
account should be taken of any opinion on unity of invention included in the documents
indicated in items (vi) and (vii) of paragraph 15.79;
Rule 45bis.6(f)
(ii) if the International Searching Authority has found a lack of unity of invention,
the applicant may, under Rule 45bis.1(d) have specified a wish that the supplementary
search be limited to one of those inventions (for example, because the first invention is

Page 142
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

clearly not novel and he does not wish to pursue it further) – if the examiner agrees with the
assessment of unity of invention and the relevant claims are not excluded for any reason, the
supplementary international search should focus on that invention;
(iii) where the invention first claimed would not be searched for any reason, the
first searchable invention should be considered instead;
(iv) if other inventions are easily searched, it may be appropriate to include those
inventions within the scope of the supplementary search report (see paragraph 10.64).
Rule 45bis.6(a)(ii)
15.90 The examiner’s opinion on unity of invention and the consequent scope of the
supplementary international search should be reported on the supplementary international
search report in a similar way as for the main international search (see paragraphs 10.83 to
10.86).
Rule 45bis.6
15.91 The normal protest procedure (see paragraphs 10.66 to 10.70) does not apply to
requests for supplementary international search. However, the applicant may, within one
month of the date of notification of the supplementary international search report, request the
Authority to review the examiner’s opinion on unity of invention. This request may be subject
to a review fee. The results of the review are promptly notified to the applicant and copied to
the International Bureau using Form PCT/SISA/503. The copy to the International Bureau
should be accompanied by a copy of the applicant’s request for review in case this needs to
be transmitted to designated Offices (see paragraph 15.92) using Form PCT/SISA/503. If
the examiner’s opinion is found to be at least partly unjustified, the Authority should issue a
corrected supplementary search report, stating the revised view on unity of invention and,
where appropriate, including the search results for all claims which should have been
included. If the opinion was entirely unjustified, the applicant should also have any review
fee refunded. See paragraphs 10.87 and 10.88.
Rule 45bis.6(e)
15.92 If the applicant so requests, the International Bureau will communicate the text of
both the request for review and the decision thereon to the designated Offices together with
the supplementary international search report.
Extent of Search
Rule 45bis.5(f)
15.93 The minimum extent scope of a supplementary search is set out in the agreement
between the International Bureau and the Authority specified for supplementary search. This
may be different from the PCT minimum documentation under Rule 34 since it is expected
that the main international search should, subject to the language related exceptions in
paragraph (e) of that Rule, cover that documentation effectively. Where the main
international search report is not received before the start of the supplementary international
search (see paragraph 15.82), the examiner may need to make assumptions about the
scope which the main international search will have in order to decide the extent of the
search which he should conduct. Any comments on this matter may be recorded on the
supplementary international search report (see paragraph 15.96).
Establishment of the Supplementary International Search Report
Rule 45bis.7(a)
15.94 The supplementary international search report (Form PCT/SISA/501) must be
established, or declaration that no such report shall be established (Form PCT/SISA/502)
must be made, within 28 months from the priority date and transmitted to the applicant and to
the International Bureau using Form PCT/SISA/505.
Rule 45bis.7(b)
15.95 The report or declaration is made in a language of publication: normally either the
language of publication of the international application, or else the language of the translation

Page 143
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

provided for the purpose of the supplementary international search, though there may be
cases where the first is not a language accepted by the Authority and the second is not a
language of publication.
Rule 45bis.7(c)-(e)
15.96 The contents of the supplementary international search report are essentially the
same as for the main international search report, except for the following:
(i) an indication should be given on the cover sheet of whether the examiner was
able to take into account the main international search report;
(ii) the examiner does not classify the international application or make any
indication of its classification on the supplementary international search report;
(iii) it is not necessary to include the citation of any document cited in the main
international search report, unless it is considered to have additional relevance when cited in
conjunction with other documents not cited in the main international search report;
(iv) explanation may be included with regard to the citations considered to be
relevant: this is to allow comments to be included to indicate what the relevant features of a
document are in view of the fact that no additional written opinion is established and citations
may frequently be in a language not easily understood by the applicant;
(v) explanation may be included with regard to the scope of the supplementary
international search, for example to indicate any assumptions made relating to the
appropriate scope of search where the main international search report was not established
and transmitted to the Authority specified for supplementary search in time to be considered
during the search, or in the case of complex applications where a fallback position has been
searched.
Copies of Documents
Rule 45bis.7(c)
15.97 The Authority must provide copies of cited documents to the applicant or any
designated Office, subject to the payment of any relevant fees, on request at any time within
seven years from the international filing date, as would be the case for the International
Searching Authority under Article 20(3) and Rule 44.3. Form PCT/SISA/509 may be used for
this purpose.

Page 144
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 16
International Search Report

General
16.01 The results of the international search are recorded in the international search
report (Form PCT/ISA/210), which is transmitted with Form PCT/ISA/220 to the applicant and
with Form PCT/ISA/219 to the International Bureau, together with the written opinion of the
International Searching Authority, which must be established at the same time. The search
report is published by the International Bureau and serves as a basis for the written opinion
of the International Searching Authority, any international preliminary report on patentability
(Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty), and any examination of the international
application by the designated Offices or by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
16.02 The examiner is responsible for seeing that the international search report is drawn
up in such a way that it can subsequently be typed or printed in final form.
Supplementary International Search
16.03 The guidelines in this chapter also apply to the preparation of supplementary
international search reports (see also paragraphs 15.94 to 15.97). For such reports,
Form PCT/SISA/501 is used instead of Form PCT/ISA/210. For the covering letters,
Form PCT/SISA/505 is used instead of Form PCT/ISA/220. Otherwise, specific details are
only included where the required content or procedure differs from that in the case of a
normal international search report. The supplementary international search report is not
accompanied by a written opinion, but may include certain explanations which might
otherwise have been included in a written opinion (see paragraph 15.96).
International-Type Search
16.04 The guidelines in this chapter also apply to the preparation of international-type
search reports (see paragraph 2.22). For such reports, Form PCT/ISA/201 is used instead of
Form PCT/ISA/210. Form PCT/ISA/220 (see paragraphs 16.14 to 16.21) is not used as a
covering letter: the nature of any alternative depends on the arrangements between the
International Searching Authority and the national Office on whose behalf the
international-type search is conducted, as does the matter of whether the international-type
search report is accompanied by a written opinion.
Time Limit for Establishing the International Search Report
Articles 17(2), 18(1); Rule 42.1
16.05 The international search must be carried out in time to allow the final establishment
of the international search report or of a declaration under Article 17(2) (see paragraph 9.40)
before the expiration of three months from the receipt of the search copy by the International
Searching Authority, which is notified to the applicant on Form PCT/ISA/202, or nine months
from the priority date, whichever time limit expires later. If, in case of lack of unity of
invention or of an invitation to file a sequence listing, the time limit cannot be met, the
international search report is established promptly after the receipt of additional search fees
or after the expiration of the time limit for payment of such fees, if no such payment is made,
or after the receipt of the sequence listing.
Completing the International Search Report
Sections 110, 503, 504, 505, 507, 508; AI Annex B
16.06 The following paragraphs contain information which is necessary to enable the
examiner to complete the Form correctly. Further information is contained in the following
Sections of the Administrative Instructions:
(i) for the indication of dates: Section 110;
(ii) for the classification of the international applications: Section 504 (does not
apply to supplementary international search reports);

Page 145
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(iii) for the identification of the cited documents: Section 503;

(iv) for the indication of special categories of documents: Sections 505 and 507;
(v) for the indication of the claims to which cited documents are relevant:
Section 508;
(vi) for the consideration of unity of invention: Annex B to the Administrative
Instructions.
Matter Not Required by the Form
Rule 43.9, 45bis.7
16.07 The international search report must contain no matter other than as required by
the Form; in particular, it must contain no expressions of opinion, reasoning, arguments or
explanations. However, in the case of supplementary international search reports (which are
not accompanied by written opinions), the report may contain explanations with regard to the
citations and the scope of the search: see paragraph 15.96 items (iv) and (v).
Form and Language of the International Search Report
International Search Report Form
Section 507(g)
16.08 Following completion of the search, the examiner reconsiders the classification in
the light of experience acquired during the search (this does not apply to supplementary
international searches, in which no classification of the international application is made) and
prepares the international search report (Form PCT/ISA/210) and the Notification of
Transmittal of the ISR (Form PCT/ISA/220). Once an examiner has completed the search,
there should be no delay in completing the search report. The printed international search
report Form (Form PCT/ISA/210) to be transmitted to the applicant and to the International
Bureau contains two main sheets (“first sheet” and “second sheet”) to be used for all
searches. These two main sheets are intended for recording the important features of the
search such as the fields searched and for citing documents revealed by the search. The
printed international search report form also contains six optional continuation sheets for use
where necessary. There are continuation sheets for each of the “first sheet” and the “second
sheet”:
(a) “continuation of first sheet (1),” “continuation of first sheet (2),”and
“continuation of first sheet (3);” and
(b) “continuation of second sheet,” “patent family annex,” and “extra sheet”,
respectively.
16.09 The “continuation of first sheet (1)” is used only when the international application
includes a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence and indicates the basis on which the
international search was carried out, since the relevant listings or related tables may be filed
or furnished at different times and in different forms. The “continuation of first sheet (2) is
used where an indication is made on the first sheet that claims were found unsearchable
(item 2) and/or that unity of invention is lacking (item 3). The relevant indications are then
made on that continuation sheet. The “continuation of first sheet (3)” contains the text of the
abstract where an abstract or an amended abstract is established by the International
Searching Authority (item 5) and an indication to that effect is made on the first sheet. The
“continuation of second sheet” is to be used where the space on the second sheet is
insufficient for the citation of documents. The “patent family annex,” or alternatively a blank
sheet, may be used for the indication of the members of patent families. The Form also
includes an “extra sheet,” which may be used whenever additional space is required to
complete information from the other sheets. A sheet may be in paper form or may consist of
the electronic equivalent of a paper sheet.
16.10 “Continuation of first sheet (3)” does not appear in the Forms for
international-type searches (Form PCT/ISA/201) and supplementary international searches

Page 146
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(Form PCT/SISA/501), which do not provide for establishment of an abstract.

Form PCT/SISA/501 also contains a further optional sheet for information on the scope of the
supplementary international search (see paragraphs 15.88 and 16.56).
Language of Search Report
Rule 43.4
16.11 The international search report is drawn up in the language in which the
international application to which it relates is to be published, provided that:
(i) if a translation into another language was transmitted under Rule 23.1(b) (see
paragraph 15.14) and the International Searching Authority so wishes, in the language of that
translation; or,
(ii) if the international application is to be published in the language of a
translation furnished under Rule 12.4 which is not accepted by the International Searching
Authority and the Authority so wishes, the international search report and any declaration
made under Article 17(2)(a) may be in a language which is both a language accepted by that
Authority and a language of publication referred to in Rule 48.3(a).
Supplementary international search reports are drawn up in a language of publication.
Normally, this will be either the language in which the international application is actually to
be published, or else the language of the translation provided for the purpose of
supplementary international search, but it is possible that the former may not be a working
language of the Authority and that the latter may not be a language of publication; in this
case, any language of publication may be used.
Sheets Included in the Publication
16.12 It is to be noted that only the “second sheet,” the “continuation of second sheet”
(if any), the “continuation of first sheet (2)” (if any), and “the extra sheet” (if any), as well as
any separate sheet with information on members of patent families, will be the subject of
international publication, as the “first sheet” and the continuations of first sheet (1) and (3)
(if any) contain only information which will already appear on the front page of the
publication.
Rules 45bis.8(bd), 94.1(a)
16.13 Any supplementary international search report is not included in the published
international application, but the complete document (including the first sheet and any
continuation sheets) is made available to the public, together with a translation into English
where appropriate. The report is also communicated to all designated and elected Offices
whenever the main international search report is requested.
Filling Out the Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report or the
Declaration, and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority
(Form PCT/ISA/220)
Address for Correspondence
Section 108
16.14 The address for correspondence is taken from the request form (PCT/RO/101).
When an agent represents the applicant, the address for correspondence is listed in Box No.
IV of the request form. For applicants processing their own applications, the address for
correspondence may be listed in Box No. II of the request form. However, where the
correspondence on file shows any changes in the applicant or address for correspondence,
the later address is used.

Page 147
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Applicant’s or Agent’s File Reference

Section 109
16.15 The applicant’s or agent’s file reference is taken from the request form
(PCT/RO/101) or else the most recent file reference from the latest correspondence from the
applicant or the agent.
International Application Number
16.16 The international application number is allocated and recorded on the request form
by the receiving Office.
International Filing Date
16.17 The international filing date is assigned by the receiving Office upon receipt of the
international application. This date is recorded on the request form.
Applicant
Section 105
16.18 When there is more than one applicant in respect of the international application,
only the first mentioned of these on the request form is indicated in the international search
report. The other applicants, if any, are indicated by the words “et al” (or ET-AL) following
the first applicant’s name. The first mentioned applicant is indicated in Box No. II of the
request form, a second applicant is listed in Box No. III; further applicants are listed on the
continuation sheet if there are more than two applicants.
Example (i): AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES INC. et al.
Example (ii): SMITH, John Doe
Notes:
(a) As shown above, company names are written in capital letters; for personal
names the family name is given first in capital letters and the given names are in mixed
case-this helps to identify the family name.
(b) These guidelines will be followed, mutatis mutandis, when the international
search report is being prepared in a language, such as Japanese, that does not discriminate
between uppercase and lowercase characters or when the language of the international
search report has a different order of indicating surnames and given names.
Cases Where No, or Limited, Search Report is Established
Rules 39 and 67
16.19 No International Searching Authority is required to search or examine an
international application to the extent that its subject matter is any of the following:
(i) scientific and mathematical theories,
(ii) plant or animal varieties or essentially biological processes for the production
of plants and animals, other than microbiological processes and the products of such
processes,
(iii) schemes, rules or methods of doing business, performing purely mental acts
or playing games,
(iv) methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy, as
well as diagnostic methods,
(v) mere presentations of information,
(vi) computer programs to the extent that the International Searching Authority is
not equipped to search prior art concerning such programs.

Page 148
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 9 deals in detail with these exclusions from the search and examination, as well as
other situations, such as lack of clarity, where it may not be possible to establish a
meaningful international search in respect of some or all claims. See also paragraph 15.12,
which deals with the exclusion of claims as a result of non-compliance with the relevant
standards for sequence listings. Supplementary international search reports may also
exclude claims which were not the subject of the main international search.
16.20 Paragraph 9.40 indicates the course of action to be taken if it is not possible to
establish an international search in respect of any of the claims.
16.21 Where the examiner finds that the claims relate to more than one invention and
these inventions are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept, the
international search report may be established only in respect of the first invention and those
further inventions in respect of which additional fees are paid. See Chapter 10. The
additional fees may be paid under protest (see paragraphs 10.66 to 10.70).
Filling Out the International Search Report (Form PCT/ISA/210)
Earliest Priority Date
16.22 The earliest priority date is given in Box No. VI of the request Form (PCT/RO/101).
Total Number of Sheets
16.23 The first sheet of the international search report indicates the total number of
sheets in the report. The correct number is entered, not including sheets which have not
been filled in (blank sheets). The number of sheets only includes the number of sheets from
Form PCT/ISA/210. It does not include the number of sheets from Form PCT/ISA/220
(Notification of transmittal of the international search report and the written opinion of the
International Searching Authority, or the declaration) as this is a letter to the
applicant/attorney only.
“It Is Also Accompanied by a Copy of Each Prior Art Document Cited in This Report” Box
16.24 If the International Searching Authority is sending out documents, this box is
checked.
Basis of the Report
16.25 If the search has been conducted on the basis of a translation of the international
application (see paragraph 15.14), this is indicated in item 1 of the first sheet of the
international search report. This item also includes indications of whether a rectification of an
obvious mistake has been taken into account, and a reference to any details relating to
sequence listings used (see also paragraphs 15.15 to 15.17)
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings and Related Tables
16.26 Where the application discloses any nucleotide and/or amino acid, box 1.b of the
first sheet is checked and Box No. I (appearing on “continuation of first sheet (1)”) indicates
the form (that is, whether in paper or electronic form) and status (that is, whether filed with
the international application or later, for the purposes of search) of the sequence listing, and
any related tables, that the search was carried out on. See paragraphs 4.15 and 15.12 for
further details.
Reference to Main International Search Report
16.27 In the case of supplementary international search reports, item 1.d of the first
sheet indicates whether the international search report was received in time to take it into
account. If the international search report was not taken into account, it may be necessary to
include an indication of any assumptions which were made as to the scope of the main
international search in the Annex of Form PCT/SISA/501 concerning the scope of the
supplementary international search (see paragraph 15.93).

Page 149
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Restriction of the Subject of the International Search

16.28 The report indicates whether the search was restricted or not for any of the
reasons indicated below. If any such restrictions are applied, the claims in respect of which a
search has not been carried out are identified and the reasons for this are indicated. The
four categories where such restrictions may arise are:
(i) claims drawn to subject matter not required to be searched by the
International Authority (see Chapter 9); in the case of supplementary international searches,
see also paragraph 15.87)
(ii) claims in respect of which a meaningful search cannot be carried out (see
Chapter 9);
(iii) multiple dependent claims which do not comply with Rule 6.4(a) (see
paragraph 5.16);
(iv) lack of unity of invention (see Chapter 10).
The written opinion of the International Searching Authority will also report the relevant facts,
for example, by way of a reference to the full explanation in the international search report.
16.29 Where claims are not searched for any of the reasons (i) to (iii), box 2 of the first
sheet of the international search report is checked. In addition, Box No. II of the international
search report (on “continuation of first sheet (2)”) is completed, giving the details.
16.30 It should be noted that claims which rely, in respect of the technical features of the
invention, on references to the description or drawings (“omnibus claims”; see
paragraph 5.10) are searched and reported upon if they can be given a definite construction.
However in the written opinion of the International Searching Authority and for the purposes
of international preliminary examination, any breach of Rule 6.2(a) (no reference to the
description or drawings except when absolutely necessary) may be reported in Box No. VII of
the opinion or report.
16.31 If the national law of the Office acting as International Searching Authority permits
multiple dependent claims which do not comply with Rule 6.4(a), such claims are included in
the international search and no indication is made under item 3 of Box No. II.
16.32 Where lack of unity has been found (see Chapter 10), check box 3 of the first
sheet of the international search report (Form PCT/ISA/210) is checked. In addition,
Box No. III of the international search report (on “continuation of first sheet (2)”) is completed,
irrespective of whether an invitation to pay additional search fees has issued. The search
report indicates the separate inventions present in the claims, whether additional search fees
were requested and paid, and which claims were searched. It also indicates whether any
additional search fees were accompanied by a protest. In the case of supplementary
international search reports, there is no opportunity to pay additional fees and only a single
invention is searched – see paragraphs 10.83 to 10.88 for the applicable process in this
case.
Abstract, Title and Figure
Articles 3(2), 4(1)(iv); Rules 8, 44.2
16.33 The international application must contain an abstract and a title. The examiner
conducting the main international search indicates approval or amendment of the text of the
abstract, the title of the invention, and the selection of the figure that is to accompany the
abstract in items 4 to 6 of the first sheet of the international search report. Box No. IV (on
“continuation of first sheet (3)”) is used to record any new or amended abstract.
16.34 This procedure does not apply to supplementary international searches.
Consequently paragraphs 16.35 to 16.51 do not apply to supplementary international search
reports. For international-type searches, it is a matter for agreement between the
International Searching Authority and the national Office on whose behalf the international

Page 150
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

search is conducted whether the title and abstract are reviewed by the International
Authority. Form PCT/ISA/201 does not include specific space for such matters; if required,
the appropriate information should be recorded on separate sheets.
− Abstract
Article 14(1)(a)(iv), (1)(b); Rules 26, 38.1
16.35 Where the international application lacks an abstract, the relevant receiving Office
should find this in their routine check and issue the invitation to correct accordingly, allowing
at least one month from the mailing date of the invitation for a reply. The receiving Office
should notify the International Searching Authority that the invitation has been sent. The
receiving Office may declare the international application withdrawn if no abstract is
furnished to the receiving Office within the time limit fixed. However the International
Searching Authority proceeds with the international search unless and until it receives
notification that the application is considered withdrawn.
Article 3(3); Rule 8.3
16.36 In determining the definitive contents of the abstract, or establishing the text of the
abstract anew, where it is missing, the examiner should take into consideration the fact that
the abstract is merely for use as technical information and, in particular, must not be used
for the purpose of interpreting the scope of the protection sought. The abstract should be
drafted so that it constitutes an efficient instrument for the purpose of assisting the scientist,
engineer or researcher in searching in the particular technical field and should in particular
make it possible to assess whether there is need for consulting the international application
itself. WIPO guidelines for the preparation of abstracts are found in
WIPO Standard ST.12/A.
Rule 8.1(a), 8.3
16.37 In considering the adequacy of the applicant’s abstract and figure, because of
practical difficulties experienced by the International Bureau with publication, examiners
when assessing or drafting abstracts, should have particular regard to the following:
(a) It is important that the abstract be as concise as the disclosure permits
(preferably 50 to 150 words if it is in English or when translated into English). Within this
constraint the abstract must provide a summary of the technical information about the
disclosure as contained in the description, claims and drawings. It should be drafted so as to
serve as an efficient scanning tool for searching purposes in the art.
(b) Phrases should not be used which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure
concerns”, “The invention defined by this disclosure” and “This invention relates to”.
Rule 8.2(b)
(c) Only one figure should normally be selected unless this would lead to
inadequate disclosure. The inclusion of more than two figures should not be considered
except in extreme circumstances where necessary information cannot be otherwise
conveyed. Where none of the figures is considered useful for the understanding of the
invention (even where the applicant has suggested a figure), no figure should be selected.
(d) Abstracts may be incomprehensible if the numerals on the selected figure(s)
do not correspond with those in the abstract.
(e) An absence of reference numerals on the figures must be accepted as the
examiner has no mechanism to initiate their provision.
Rule 8.1(d)
(f) Each main technical feature mentioned in the abstract and illustrated by a
drawing should be followed by a reference sign, placed between parentheses.
Rule 38.2
16.38 If the international application does not contain an abstract and the International
Searching Authority has not received a notification from the receiving Office to the effect that

Page 151
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the applicant has been invited to furnish an abstract, or if the said Authority finds that the
abstract does not comply with Rule 8, it establishes an abstract itself.
16.39 The review of the abstract should be conducted in a way that does not impact
upon the date of actual completion of the search. This review should be completed in
parallel with other steps in the process.
16.40 The applicant can only comment on the abstract prepared by the examiner after it
has been established in the international search report (see search report
Form PCT/ISA/210, first sheet, item 5). This is the only invitation to comment issued to the
applicant. It occurs either when no abstract has been filed or when the originally filed
abstract does not comply with Rule 8, and the examiner must prepare a compliant abstract.
In this event the examiner establishes an appropriate abstract.
Rule 38.3
16.41 The applicant is allowed one month from the date of mailing of the international
search report to respond to the examiner’s abstract in the report by filing at the International
Searching Authority proposed modifications of the abstract, or, where the abstract has been
established by the Authority, proposed modifications of and/or comments on that abstract.
The Authority shall decide whether to modify the abstract accordingly, and shall notify any
modification to the International Bureau.
16.42 If the applicant does comment, the examiner takes the applicant’s comments into
consideration. It is not necessary for the examiner to reply to the applicant’s comment even
if adverse.
Rule 38.3; Section 515
16.43 If the International Searching Authority amends the abstract established in the
international search report it notifies the International Bureau and the applicant using
Form PCT/ISA/205.
− Title
Rules 4.3, 26.1, 37.2, 44.2
16.44 According to Rule 4.3, the title must be short and precise (preferable from two to
seven words in English or when translated into English). Furthermore, the title should clearly
and concisely state the technical designation of the invention. In this regard the following
should be taken into account:
(a) personal names or trade names or similar terms of a non-technical nature
which do not serve to identify the invention should not be used;
(b) the abbreviation “etc.”, being vague, should not be used and should be
replaced by an indication of what it is intended to cover;
(c) titles such as “Method”, “Apparatus”, “Chemical Compounds” alone or similar
vague titles do not clearly state the technical designation of the invention.”
Article 14(1)(a)(iii), 14(1)(b); Rules 26, 37.1
16.45 Where the international application lacks a title, the relevant receiving Office
should find this in its routine check and issue the invitation to correct accordingly, allowing at
least one month from the mailing date of the invitation for a reply. The receiving Office
should notify the International Searching Authority that the invitation has been sent. The
receiving Office may declare the international application withdrawn if no title is furnished to
the receiving Office within the time limit fixed. However, the International Searching Authority
proceeds with the international search unless and until it receives notification that the
application is considered withdrawn.

Page 152
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 37
16.46 The examiner is required to draft a title where:
(i) the applicant has not responded to the invitation from the receiving Office to
provide a title within the time allowed, but the International Searching Authority has not
received notification that the application is considered withdrawn,
(ii) no title was filed and the receiving Office omitted to invite the applicant to
rectify the deficiency, or
(iii) the title is deficient because it does not comply with the requirements of
Rule 4.3.
16.47 The examiner is not required to gain the approval of the applicant for the title and
the establishment of the title by the examiner is by suitable completion of the international
search report Form (see check box 4 of the first sheet of Form PCT/ISA/210).
− Drawings to Be Published
16.48 When indicating the Figure No. of the drawings, the applicant’s suggestion is found
at Box No. IX of the request form (PCT/RO/101).
16.49 Where none of the figures is considered useful for the understanding of the
abstract, this is indicated at the appropriate box (item 6, first sheet of the international search
report).
16.50 When no drawings accompany the application none of the boxes are checked.
16.51 It is not recommended to select more than one figure; however, if it is necessary
to do so then the wording of the Form should be changed to reflect the change from single
case to plural case. For example, “figure” is changed to “figures”, “is” to “are” and “No.” to
“Nos.”. (These recommendations will be followed, mutatis mutandis, when the international
search report is being prepared in a language, such as Japanese, that does not have
distinction between singular and plural forms.)
Classification of Subject Matter
Rule 43.3(a)
16.52 The International Searching Authority conducting the main international search
assigns obligatory “invention information” International Patent Classification (IPC) symbols in
accordance with the rules as set forth in the Guide to the IPC and in the IPC itself (using the
edition of the IPC in force at the time) and records this information in Box A of the second
sheet of the international search report. Non-obligatory IPC symbols, as defined in the Guide
(such as the optional IPC indexing codes), do not need to be applied. The IPC Guide can be
accessed via the WIPO web site at: www.wipo.int. See Chapter 7. No additional
classification or reclassification is made during any supplementary international search.
Fields Searched
Rule 43.6(a)
16.53 The international search report lists the classification identification of the fields
searched in Box B of the second sheet of the international search report. If the IPC is not
used for this purpose, the classification used is indicated.
Minimum Documentation Searched
16.54 The International Searching Authority consults the minimum documentation
specified in Rule 34 and considers other relevant databases or other search resources such
as those listed in the Search Guidance IPDL. Where the IPC classification terms were
searched, with or without restricting the search by using key words, the examiner should
enter the associated IPC symbols on the international search report.

Page 153
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Documentation Searched Other Than Minimum Documentation

Rule 43.6(b)
16.55 Where documentation other than the PCT minimum documentation is searched,
the other documentation searched is identified in Box B of the second sheet of the
international search report when practicable. This section is used for non-electronic
databases searched, for example, paper or microfilm. It is used for example, for:
(a) Capri-enter “CAPRI” and the appropriate IPC code for the classification
searched, for example, “CAPRI: IPC F16B 1/02”.
(b) Search of patent specifications not forming part of the minimum
documentation according to a classification system peculiar to the country issuing the patent
- enter classification searched, for example, “AU Class 53.6”
(c) Search of patent specifications not forming part of the minimum
documentation according to the IPC: – enter the IPC codes for the classification places
searched, for example, “AU: IPC B65G 51/-”
Rule 45bis.7(e)(ii)
16.56 In the case of a supplementary international search report, depending on the
scope of service which is defined in the agreement between the International Bureau and the
particular International Searching Authority, the examiner may assume that the PCT
minimum documentation had been included in the main international search and that the
main focus of the search might lie elsewhere, for example on disclosures in particular
languages in which the International Authority specified for supplementary search
specializes. An extra sheet may be included to make longer comments on the scope of the
supplementary international search, including any assumptions which have been made on
the scope of the main international search in the event that this was not received by the
Authority in time to review it prior to carrying out the supplementary search (see
paragraph 15.93).

16.57 Where the examiner chooses to cite a document listed in a third party observation
which would not have been found in the documentation searched, he may indicate “Third
party observation submitted [Date]” in the “documentation searched other than the minimum
documentation” box in Form PCT/ISA/210.
Electronic Database Consulted
Rule 43.6(c)
16.58 Where an electronic database is used in carrying out the international search, the
name of the database may be included in the search report. In addition, depending on the
policy of an International Searching Authority, examiners may find it useful to others to
indicate the exact search queries used to search the database in the report. If it is
impractical to record the exact query or queries, then a summary of the query or queries
should be included. See paragraph 16.59.
16.59 Where keywords (search terms) are used, it may be useful to include the keywords
on the search report. If the number of keywords used is large, then a representative sample
of the keywords could be used (for example, “Keywords: A, B, C, and similar terms”).
However, depending on the policy of an International Searching Authority, the examiner may
find it useful to record the search history in sufficient detail to allow examiners of national
stage applications to fully interpret and rely upon the international search. See
paragraph 15.62.
16.60 Structure searches are not conveniently indicated on the search report. If a
structure search was carried out this can be indicated by a statement such as “structure
search carried out based on the quinoline nucleus in formula (I)”.

Page 154
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

16.61 Sequence searches should be dealt with in the same way as structure searches
(“search of SEQ ID 1-5”).
Examples:
DWPI & keywords: A, B, C, and similar terms (Note; DWPI includes WPAT, WPI,
WPIL)
JAPIO & keywords: A, B, C, and similar terms
MEDLINE & keywords: A, B, C, and similar terms
DWPI IPC A01B 1/- & keywords: A, B, C
CA & WPIDS: IPC C07D 409/- & keywords: A, B, C
CA: Structure searched based on Formula (I)
ESP@CE keywords: A, B, C.
Genbank: Sequence search on nucleic acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 1.
Notes:
(a) Merely putting “keywords searched” without specifying the actual keywords
used is not acceptable.
(b) There is no need to indicate the way the database was accessed, for example,
there is no need to specify that ESP@CE was accessed via the Internet, or MEDLINE
via STN.
(c) Where the search is conducted using a particularly relevant portion of a longer
referenced nucleic acid or amino acid sequence, rather than the full length sequence
referenced as filed for a particular SEQ ID NO of the sequence listing, the search examiner
should indicate the region or regions of the full length reference sequence which
encompassed the sequence searched. For example “search of SEQ ID NO: 1 for
nucleotides 1150-1250 only.”
Previous Search
16.62 Where the international search report is entirely or partly based on a previous
search made for an application relating to a similar subject, the previous application number
and the relevant search history consulted for this previous search is, where appropriate,
identified as having been consulted for the international application in question, except in
those instances where the details of an earlier search cannot be ascertained, or whenever it
is impractical to record the full details of the earlier search. In the latter case, a summary of
the earlier search should be included. Where the previous application has been published,
this information is recorded in the international search report; if the previous application has
not yet been published and, if the applicant is the same as that of the previous application,
the information may be sent to the applicant informally when the international search report is
transmitted. See paragraph 16.59.
Documents Considered to Be Relevant
Rule 43.5
16.63 The completion of Box C of the second sheet of the international search report can
be considered as having three components. These are: the citation category; the citation of
the document together with identification of relevant passages where appropriate; and the
identification of relevant claim numbers. These three components are discussed separately
in paragraphs 16.65 to 16.75, 16.78, 16.77 and 16.80, respectively, below.
16.64 Some general points to note are:

Page 155
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 33.1
(a) Documents selected for citation should be the prior art that is closest to the
applicant’s invention. The duplication of teachings by way of citation of multiple documents
showing the same inventive elements should be kept to a minimum (see paragraphs 15.67
and 15.69).
(b) When citing a document, the examiner should clearly indicate which portions
and specific pages of the document are most relevant (see paragraph 15.69). Where the
cited document is a patent document in a language other than English and another member
of the same patent family is available in English, the examiner should preferably also indicate
the corresponding part or passage of the English member of the patent family. In doing so,
the examiner should not cite the English member as a separate document, but briefly
mention it and indicate the relevant part or passage of that English member in the place
following the indications of specific part or passage of the cited document.
(c) In the case of supplementary international searches, the examiner need not
include in the report the citation of any document cited in the international search report,
except where the document needs to be cited in conjunction with other documents that were
not cited in the international search report. Noting that the supplementary search is intended
to supplement the main international search rather than to make a reassessment, inclusion
of such citations and reassessment of their relevance should be avoided. Usually, the
reason for including such a citation is where it is necessary to cite the document as category
“Y” (see paragraph 16.68) to indicate a lack of inventive step when the disclosure of the
document is taken together with that of a newly discovered citation, further to any lack of
inventive step indicated in the main international search report. Nevertheless, recitation of a
document may also be appropriate where the main international search report has clearly
failed to recognize the extent of a document’s relevance, for example because the first
examiner was relying on an abstract or machine translation because he did not understand
the original language of the document.
Citation Category
Sections 505, 507
16.65 Documents which are cited are given a category indication by way of an alphabetic
character, details of which are given in Administrative Instructions 505 and 507 and below.
The categories for citations are also explained under the “Documents considered to be
relevant” section of the report. A category should always be indicated for each document
cited. Where needed, combinations of different categories are possible.
− Particularly relevant documents
Section 505
16.66 Where a document cited in the international search report is particularly relevant, it
is indicated by the letters “X” or “Y”.
16.67 Category “X” is applicable where a document is such that when taken alone, a
claimed invention cannot be considered novel or where a document is such that when
considered in light of common general knowledge, a claimed invention cannot be considered
to involve an inventive step.
16.68 Category “Y” is applicable where a document is such that a claimed invention
cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is combined with one
or more other documents of the same category, such combination being obvious to a person
skilled in the art.
− Documents defining the state of the art not prejudicing novelty or inventive step
Section 507(c)
16.69 Where a document cited in the International search report represents state of the
art not prejudicial to the novelty or inventive step of the claimed invention, it is indicated by
the letter “A”.

Page 156
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

− Documents which refer to a non-written disclosure

Section 507(a)
16.70 Where a document cited in the International search report refers to a non-written
disclosure, the letter “O” is entered. Examples of such disclosures include conference
proceedings. The document category “O” is always accompanied by a symbol indicating the
relevance of the document according to paragraphs 16.67 to 16.69, for example O,X, O,Y
or O,A.
− Intermediate documents
Section 507(d)
16.71 Documents published on dates falling between the date of filing of the application
being examined and the date of priority claimed, or the earliest priority if there is more than
one (see Article 2(xi)(b)), are denoted by the letter “P”. The letter “P” is also given to a
document published on the very day of the earliest date of priority of the patent application
under consideration. The document category “P” is always accompanied by a symbol
indicating the relevance of the document, for example P,X, P,Y or P,A.
− Documents relating to the theory or principle underlying the invention
Section 507(e)
16.72 Where any document cited in the search report is a document whose publication
date occurred after the filing date or the priority date of the international application and is not
in conflict with the said application, but which may be useful for a better understanding of the
principle or theory underlying the invention, or is cited to show that the reasoning or the facts
underlying the invention are incorrect, it is indicated by the letter “T”.
− Potentially conflicting patent documents
Section 507(b)
16.73 Any patent document bearing a filing or priority date earlier than the filing date of
the application searched but published on or after the international filing date and the content
of which would constitute prior art relevant to novelty (Article 33(2)) is indicated by the letter
“E” (see Section 507(b) and Rule 33.1(c)). An exception is made for patent documents
based on the priority under consideration. For the benefit of Contracting States whose
national laws allow the combination of documents that are indicated by the letter “E” to be
cited for inventive step purposes, category “E” may be accompanied by one of the categories
“X”, “Y”, or “A”.
− Documents cited in the application
16.74 When the search report cites documents already mentioned in the description of
the patent application for which the search is carried out, such documents may be identified
on the search report by the wording “cited in the application”, which appears under the cited
document.
− Documents cited for other reasons
Section 507(f)
16.75 Where in the search report any document is cited for reasons other than those
referred to in the foregoing paragraphs (in particular as evidence), for example:
(a) a document which may throw doubt on a priority claim (Article 4(C)(4) of the
Paris Convention), or
(b) a document cited to establish the publication date of another citation
the document is indicated by the letter “L”. Brief reasons for citing the document should be
given. Documents of this type need not be indicated as relevant to any particular claims.
However, where the evidence which they provide relates only to certain claims (for example
the “L” document cited in the search report may invalidate the priority in respect of certain
claims and not others), then the citation of the document should refer to those claims.

Page 157
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

− Non-prejudicial disclosures
16.76 In certain cases the invention may have been disclosed, before the relevant date
for the purposes of the PCT, in such a way that it is not considered to form part of the state of
the art in accordance with the national law of one or more designated Offices. The applicant
may make a declaration of the existence of such excluded state of the art in the request
Form according to Rule 4.17(v). However these exemptions do not necessarily apply in all
designated Contracting States and additionally, according to Rule 51bis.1(a)(v), the applicant
may still have to file the correct documents in the national/regional phase at the designated
Office in question in order to qualify for the exemption. Consequently such documents must
be cited on the international search report with the appropriate category indicated above and
may also be considered in the written opinion of the International Searching Authority and
during international preliminary examination.
Relationship Between Documents and Claims
Section 508
16.77 Each citation should include a reference to the claims to which it relates. If
necessary, various relevant parts of the document cited should each be related to the claims
in like manner (with the exception of “L” documents, see paragraph 16.80 and “A”
documents, see paragraph 16.73). It is also possible for the same document to represent a
different category with respect to different claims. For example:
X WO9001867 A (WIDEGREN LARS (SE)) 1
8 March 1990 (1990-03-08)
Y * figure 1 * 2-5
A * figure 2 * 6-10

The above example means that Figures 1 and 2 of the cited document disclose subject
matter which prejudices the novelty or inventive step of claim 1, which prejudices the
inventive step of claims 2-5 when combined with another document cited in the search
report, and which represents non-prejudicial state of the art for the subject matter of
claims 6-10.
Citation of the Documents
Section 503; WIPO Standard ST.14
16.78 Identification of any document should be made according to WIPO Standard
ST.14. In the case of patent documents, this means the inclusion of:
(i) the industrial property office that issued the document, by the two-letter code
(WIPO Standard ST.3);
(ii) the number of the document as given to it by the industrial property office that
issued it (for Japanese patent documents, the indication of the year of the reign of the
Emperor must precede the serial number of the patent document);
(iii) the kind of document, by the appropriate symbols as indicated on the
document under WIPO Standard ST.16 or, if not indicated on that document, as provided in
that Standard, if possible;
(iv) the name of the patentee or applicant (in capital letters and, where
appropriate, abbreviated);
(v) the date of publication of the cited patent document (using four digits for a
year designation according to the Gregorian Calendar) or, in case of a corrected patent
document, the date of issuance of the corrected patent document as referred to under INID
code (48) of WIPO Standard ST.9 and, if provided on the document, the supplementary
correction code as referred to under INID code (15);

Page 158
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(vi) indications of the location of the most relevant cited material within the
document, preferably by means of paragraph numbers or page and line numbers; where
multiple renderings of the same document are published (for example, PDF and HTML); it
may also be necessary to indicate which version of the document is being referred to (WIPO
Standard ST.14 also provides recommendations for best modes of identifying passages in
cases where paragraph, page and line numbers are not well defined).
16.78A Identification of an article published in a periodical or other serial publication
should be made according to WIPO Standard ST.14 by the inclusion of the following:
(i) the name of the author (in capital letters). In case of multiple authors,
preferably, all names should be entered, alternatively the name of the first author should be
entered followed by “et al.”;
(ii) the title of the article (where appropriate, abbreviated or truncated) in the
periodical or other serial publication;
(iii) the title of the periodical or other serial publication (abbreviations conforming
to generally recognized international practice may be used);
(iv) the location within the periodical or other serial publication by indicating date
of issue by four digits for the year designation, issue designation, pagination of the article
(where year, month and day are available, the provisions of WIPO Standard ST.2 should be
applied);
(v) if available, the standard identifier and number assigned to the item, e.g.,
ISBN 2-7654-0537-9, ISSN 1045-1064. It should be noted that these numbers may differ for
the same title in the printed and electronic versions;
(vi) where applicable, the relevant passages of the article and/or the relevant
figures of the drawings.
16.78B For non-patent literature citations in a language other than English, the original
(non-English) reference should be included, wherever technically possible, followed by an
official translation into English, if one exists and it is available, in round brackets. An “official
translation” here means an existing rendering of the original language name or title in English
coming from the same source as the citation and useful for identifying and retrieving the
relevant document. In case an official translation into English is not available for some
elements of the original citation, an informal translation into English for those elements may
optionally be provided after all elements of any official translation. Any informal translation
should be preceded by the text “non-official translation”.
1.78C Examples of identifying documents cited in the international search report in the
situations described in the preceding paragraphs and in other situations are found in WIPO
Standard ST.14.
Rule 45bis.7(e)(i)
16.79 In the case of supplementary international search reports, an explanation may also
be included with regard to why the citation is considered relevant. This aims to assist the
reader in establishing the reason for which a document was cited, noting especially that
many citations in supplementary international search reports may be in languages which
might not be fully comprehended by the applicant or by designated and elected Offices. If
this explanation can be made in a few words, such that it will not make the list of citations
difficult to read, it should be included together with the main citation. If a longer explanation
appears necessary, a separate sheet may be added for the purpose.
16.80 For “A” citations it is not necessary to indicate the relevant claims unless there is
good reason to do so; for example where there is a clear lack of unity a priori and the
citation is relevant only to a particular claim or group of claims or when the claims meet the
criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability under Article 33(2) to (4) and the
“A” category citations represent the most relevant prior art.

Page 159
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

16.81 The box on the second sheet of Form PCT/ISA/210 entitled “Further documents
are listed in the continuation of Box C” is checked if more documents are cited than will fit in
the space provided in Box C and therefore a continuation sheet is used.
16.82 The search report is published with the specification and distributed worldwide. To
enable any reader in any country to consider the citation in the most convenient
document/language, the known family members of each citation are normally listed in the
patent family annex sheet of the international search report. The box on the second sheet of
Form PCT/ISA/210 entitled “See patent family annex” is checked if a family member listing is
included with the report. Where INPADOC is used to check the family member, it should be
noted that:
(a) INPADOC does not provide family listings for documents published prior
to 1968;
(b) If INPADOC indicates there are no family members for a cited document then
indicate this by entering the word “NONE” where the family members would appear. This
indicates to the applicant that a search for family members has been carried out and there
was a nil result; and
(c) If INPADOC indicates that none of the citations has a family member the “See
patent family annex” box should still be checked and the practice indicated in the
paragraph (b) above should be followed for all citations.
Finalization of the Report
Article 19; Rules 43.1, 43.2, 46.1
16.83 The identification of the International Searching Authority which established the
international search report and the date on which the report was drawn up are indicated at
the bottom of the second sheet of the international search report. This date should be that of
the drafting of the report by the examiner who carried out the search. In addition to the date
of actual completion, that is, the date on which the report was drawn up, of the international
search, the international search report also indicates the date on which it was mailed to the
applicant, which is important for the computation of the time limit for filing amendments to the
claims under Article 19.
Rule 43.8; Section 514
16.84 Where the examiner is an authorized officer his name will appear on the search
report. Where the examiner is not an authorized officer the name of the responsible
examiner who will be supervising the report should be entered as the authorized officer.
Where the examiner is an authorized officer then the date of actual completion will be the
date of completion of the search report and he enters it on the search report. Where the
examiner is not an authorized officer, the “date of completion” should be entered after the
responsible officer has supervised the report and corrections, if any, have been made.
16.85 The report should be mailed within three months of receipt of the search copy or
within nine months from the priority date, whichever is later.
Copies of References Cited in the International Search Report
Rule 44.3
16.86 The International Searching Authority should preferably attach copies of all
references cited to the copy of the international search report which is sent to the applicant.
However, the preparation of such copies may be the subject of a separate request and
payment of a separate fee for copies may be required. For the invitation for payment of fees
Form PCT/ISA/221 may be used.
Article 20(3); Rule 44.3
16.87 The International Searching Authority or an agency responsible to it must send,
upon request, copies of all references cited in the international search report to any
designated Office or the applicant. Such a request may be presented any time during seven

Page 160
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

years from the international filing date under the conditions laid down in Rule 44.3. Copies of
the references cited may be transmitted with Form PCT/ISA/211.

Page 161
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART V
WRITTEN OPINION/INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION REPORT

Chapter 17
Content of Written Opinions and the International Preliminary
Examination Report

Introduction
17.01 This chapter covers the content of any written opinion, whether established by the
International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority. It also
covers the content of the international preliminary examination report, which follows a very
similar format to a written opinion.
Articles 33(1), 34(2)(c); Rule 66
17.02 The purpose of a written opinion, issued by the International Searching Authority or
the International Preliminary Examining Authority, is to give a primary indication to the
applicant of the defects which the examiner considers to exist in the application so that the
applicant can determine the most appropriate course of action, including the possibilities of
filing a demand for international preliminary examination or submitting comments or
amendments, before any international preliminary examination report is drawn up. Its
primary role is to identify whether or not the claimed invention appears to be novel, involve
an inventive step (be non-obvious) and be industrially applicable. It will also include opinions
on certain other substantive defects in so far as checked by the Authority, mainly where
these affect the ability to determine the novelty, inventive step or industrial application of the
invention accurately, and on certain defects in the form of the international application (see
Rule 43bis.1(a) and Rule 66.2(a)).
17.03 The international preliminary examination report follows the same format as a
written opinion and, assuming that international preliminary examination is demanded, is
established taking into account any amendments or observations filed in response to the
written opinions (either of the International Searching Authority or of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority) which precede it.
Different Types of Opinion and Report
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority
Rule 43bis, 66.1bis
17.04 A written opinion will be issued by the International Searching Authority together
with the international search report or the declaration under Article 17(2)(a) that no
international search report will be established. This will normally be treated as the first
written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority under Article 34(2) in the
event that international preliminary examination is demanded and, as such, the opinion will
include an invitation to submit a response, together with a time-limit (see Rules 43bis.1(c)
and 54bis.1(a)) for that response, if the applicant wishes to demand international preliminary
examination. However International Preliminary Examining Authorities may notify the
International Bureau that this will not be the case for written opinions issued by specified
International Searching Authorities other than themselves. Such notifications are published
by the International Bureau in the Gazette.
17.05 Many of the Rules that are referred to in this chapter are stated to apply to the
International Preliminary Examining Authority conducting an international preliminary
examination under Chapter II of the Treaty. However, while this is not explicitly stated in the
references, they also apply to the International Searching Authority by virtue of
Rule 43bis.1(b).

Page 162
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Written Opinion(s) of the International Preliminary Examining Authority

Rule 66.4, 66.6
17.06 Written opinions may also be issued by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority where international preliminary examination is demanded. The written opinion of
the International Searching Authority is usually treated as the first written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority. Although not required, the IPEA may
establish further written opinions taking into account arguments or amendments made by the
applicant in response to the written opinion issued by the International Searching Authority.
Such written opinions will normally offer the applicant a further opportunity to submit
amendments or arguments before the international preliminary examination report is
established. The International Preliminary Examining Authority may also communicate
informally with the applicant over the telephone, in writing, or by personal interview.
17.07 For international applications where the written opinion of the International
Searching Authority is not treated as the first written opinion under Article 34(2), the
International Preliminary Examining Authority should (except where all the conditions
(i) through (vi) set out in paragraph 19.22 apply):
(a) establish a first written opinion as defined in paragraph 17.02, which should
take into account the content of the written opinion established by the International Searching
Authority; and
(b) notify the applicant accordingly in writing and set a time period for response as
defined in Rule 66.2(d).
The International Preliminary Examination Report
17.08 Assuming that international preliminary examination is demanded, an international
preliminary examination report (entitled “international preliminary report on patentability
(Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation Treaty)”) is drawn up at the end of the process of
examination, taking into account amendments or observations that the applicant has made
during the process.
Content of the Opinion or Report
Overview of Content
Rules 43bis, 66.1bis, 66.2(a), 70.2(c) and (d)
17.09 Any written opinion should usually cover all matters referred to in Rule 66.2. Such
matters may be:
(i) whether any of the situations referred to in Article 34(4) apply (subject matter
of the application not required to be examined by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority or meaningful opinion on novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability not
possible because of lack of clarity or because the claims are not adequately supported by the
description),
(ii) an apparent failure to meet the criteria of novelty, inventive step or industrial
applicability,
(iii) defects in the form or contents of the international application insofar as
checked by that Authority (for example, failure to comply with one or more of the
requirements specified in Rules 5 to 11),
(iv) amendments which appear to go beyond the disclosure of the international
application as filed or which do not comply with Rule 46.5(b)(iii) or Rule 66.8(a)
(see paragraph 17.23) (only applicable for International Preliminary Examining Authority
procedures),
(v) an apparent lack of clarity in the claims, the description or the drawings or of
support for the claims in the description such as would require some observations to be
made in this respect in the international preliminary examination report should such report be

Page 163
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

established on the basis of the international application without further amendment insofar as
checked by that Authority,
(vi) that a claim is directed to an invention on which no international search report
has been established, and
(vii) nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listings not being available in such a
form that a meaningful international preliminary examination can be carried out.
Form of Opinion or Report
17.10 Written opinions are established in a standard format using Form PCT/ISA/237 (for
the opinion of an International Searching Authority) or PCT/IPEA/408 (for an opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority). International preliminary examination reports
(given the title “international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II of the Patent
Cooperation Treaty)”) are established using Form PCT/IPEA/409. Apart from the cover
sheet, containing generally bibliographic details and any notification of action that the
applicant may be invited to take, these follow the same format, including whichever of the
following parts are appropriate to the particular international application:
(i) Basis of the opinion or report;
(ii) Priority;
(iii) Non-establishment of opinion with regard to novelty, inventive step and
industrial applicability;
(iv) Lack of unity of invention;
(v) Reasoned statement under Rule 66.2(a)(ii) or Article 35(2) with regard to
novelty, inventive step or industrial applicability and citations supporting such statement;
(vi) Certain documents cited;
(vii) Certain defects in the international application;
(viii) Certain observations on the international application.
Sheets which have not been filled in (blank sheets) are to be omitted from the opinion or
report, and are not to be included in the total number of sheets listed under item 2 of the
cover sheet.
Data
Section 109
17.11 The following data (insofar as set out on the cover sheet of the Form) are first
included in accordance with Rules 43bis.1(b), 70.3, 70.4, 70.5 in the written opinion and the
international preliminary examination report:
(i) the international application number;
(ii) the name of the applicant;
(iii) the name of the International Authority;
(iv) the international filing date;
(v) the classification of the subject matter, at least according to the International
Patent Classification (IPC);
(vi) the claimed priority date;
(vii) the applicant’s or agent’s file reference (composed either of letters or numbers
or both, but not exceeding 12 characters).

Page 164
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Section 504
17.12 The indication of the classification of the subject matter referred to in item (v),
above, repeats the classification of the subject matter by the International Searching
Authority given under Rule 43.3 if the examiner agrees with such classification, or, if the
examiner does not agree with that classification, sets forth the classification which the
examiner considers to be correct (see Chapter 7).
Box No. I: Basis of the Written Opinion
Rule 66.2(a)(iv), 70.2(a), (c)
17.13 Since the written opinion of the International Searching Authority is drawn up at the
same time as the international search report, it is always established on the basis of the
application as filed, or a translation thereof, and subject to the possibility of sequence listings
being furnished later for the purposes of international search (see paragraphs 17.15 and
17.21). (See paragraph 17.16 for a definition of “originally filed sheets.”) However, any
written opinion drawn up after rectifications (before the International Searching Authority and
International Preliminary Examining Authority) or amendments and/or rectifications (before
the International Preliminary Examining Authority) should take these into account and
indicate the relevant replacement sheets in the opinion.
17.14 Any amendment submitted must not add subject matter which goes beyond the
disclosure of the international application as originally filed (see Chapter 20).
− Language Considerations
Rules 23.1 (b), 48.3(b), 55.2, 55.3
17.15 With regard to the language, item 1 of Box No. I need not be filled if all the
elements of the application (originally filed sheets and amended sheets, if any) were
available or furnished to the International Authority in the language in which the international
application was filed. Otherwise, an appropriate indication must be checked as to whether
the elements were available or furnished to the International Authority in the language which
is:
(i) the language of a translation furnished for the purposes of international search
(under Rule 23.1(b));
(ii) the language of publication of the international application (under
Rule 48.3(b)); or
(iii) the language of the translation furnished for the purposes of international
preliminary examination (under Rules 55.2 and/or 55.3).
For further discussions of language, refer to Chapter 18.
− Replacement Sheets Deemed to Be Part of the Application as Originally Filed
17.16 Replacement pages or sheets, filed in response to an invitation by the receiving
Office to correct defects in the international application, are deemed to be part of the
international application “as originally filed”. If the applicant responds to the invitation to
correct defects by replacing sheets of the application, these sheets are identified with
“SUBSTITUTE SHEET (RULE 26)” stamped on them. Also, replacement pages or sheets for
rectification of obvious errors under Rule 91 are deemed to be part of the international
application “as originally filed”. These sheets are identified with “RECTIFIED SHEET
(RULE 91)”.
− Examination on Basis of Amended International Application
17.17 Where a written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or
international preliminary examination report is based on the international application as
originally filed or furnished, this is noted by checking the first box under item 2 of Box No. I of
the relevant Form. Where amendments have been filed, the report indicates the version of
each page on which the opinion or report is based.

Page 165
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

17.18 Where amendments under Article 19 have been made by the applicant, they
should be referred to in Box No. I, item 2 as “claims: pages .... as amended under Art 19”.
Note that under Article 19 only claims may be amended. These sheets are usually identified
by “AMENDED SHEET (ARTICLE 19)”.
17.19 Where amendments under Article 34 have been made by the applicant, these
should also be referred to in Box No. I, item 2 as “pages....received by this Authority on.... .”.
Rule 70.16; Section 602
17.20 The amendments under Article 34 should indicate the dates on the amendments
as the “received on” dates. Superseded amendments are not normally included. However, if
a first replacement sheet is acceptable and a second replacement sheet for the same
numbered sheet contains subject matter that goes beyond the original disclosure of the
application as filed, the second replacement sheet supersedes the first replacement sheet,
but both the first and second replacement sheets are attached to the international preliminary
examination report along with the accompanying letters as required under Rule 70.16(a). In
this case, the superseded replacement sheets are marked “SUPERSEDED REPLACEMENT
SHEET (RULE 70.16(b))” in addition to the marks indicating when it was received as an
amendment sheet. When the Annexes to the international preliminary examination report
contain both final amendments, which are considered to contain subject matter that goes
beyond the original disclosure or which are not accompanied by a letter indicating the basis
for the amendments in the application as filed, and earlier amendments, which form part of
the basis of the report, this fact is noted in the relevant box under item 3.a of the cover sheet
to Form PCT/IPEA/409.
− Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings
17.21 With regard to any nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing, one or more of
the following indications must be given with respect to the sequence listing, on which the
examination is based, either in item 3 of Box No. I (for the written opinion of the International
Searching Authority) or in item 1 of the Supplemental Box Relating to Sequence Listings (in
written opinions of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the international
preliminary examination report):
(a) forming part of the international application as filed (in the form of an
Annex C/ST.25 text file, or on paper or in the form of an image file);
(b) furnished together with the international application under Rule 13ter.1(a) for
the purposes of international search only in the form of an Annex C/ST.25 text file;
(c) furnished subsequent to the international filing date for the purposes of
international search and/or preliminary examination (in the form of an Annex C/ST.25 text
file, or on paper or in the form of an image file); and (in the case of international preliminary
examination)
(d) furnished as an amendment under Article 34 (in the form of an Annex C/ST.25
text file, or on paper or in the form of an image file) .
Where more than one version or copy of a sequence listing related thereto has been filed,
the check box either under item 4 of Box No. I (for the written opinion of the International
Searching Authority) or under item 2 of the Supplemental Box Relating to Sequence Listings
(for the written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the
international preliminary examination report) is used to indicate whether the required
statements were included, that the information in the subsequent or additional copies is
identical to that in the application as filed or does not go beyond the application as filed. For
further discussions of the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listings, refer to
Chapter 18.

Page 166
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

− Amendments Resulting in Gaps in Numbering

17.22 Where amendments under Article 19 or 34 have been made which result in
cancellation or gaps in the numbering sequence of the description pages, claim numbers,
and/or drawing sheets, these are detailed in item 3 of Box No. I of the written opinion and/or
report.
− Amendments Going Beyond Original Disclosure
Rule 70.2(c)
17.23 Where amendments have been made which go beyond the original disclosure of
the application as filed, the examiner identifies said amended sheet(s) in item 4 of Box No. I
of the written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the international
preliminary examination report. The particular amendments are identified and brief reasons
given in a Supplemental Box sheet. These amendments are attached to the international
preliminary examination report as Annexes, in addition to any amended sheets which form
part of the basis of the report. (See also paragraph 17.20)
17.24 Refer to paragraph 20.11 for further Article 19/34 considerations.
− Top-up Searches
Rule 70.2(f)
17.25 With regard to top-up searches, the appropriate indication must be given in item 6
of Box No. I of the report with respect to whether a top-up search has been carried out by the
International Preliminary Examining Authority. Where it has carried out a top-up search, the
examiner also indicates the date on which the top-up search was carried out and whether
additional relevant documents have been discovered during the top-up search.
Amendments Not Accompanied by a Letter to Indicate Their Basis in the Application as Filed
Rule 70.2(c-bis)
17.26 Where amendments have been made but the replacement sheet or sheets was not
accompanied by a letter indicating the basis for the amendment in the application as filed
and the report is established as if the amendment had not been made, the examiner
identifies said amended sheet(s) in item 4 of Box No. I of the written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority or the international preliminary examination
report. These amendments are attached to the international preliminary examination report
as Annexes, in addition to any amended sheets which form part of the basis of the report.
(See also paragraph 17.20)
Rectification of Obvious Mistakes
Rule 70.2(e); Section 607
17.27 If a rectification of an obvious mistake is taken into account under Rule 66.1, the
report shall so indicate in tem 5 of Box No. 1 of the written opinion of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority or the international preliminary examination report. If a
rectification of an obvious mistake is not taken into account pursuant to Rule 66.4bis, the
report shall, if possible, so indicate in item 5 of Box No. 1 of the written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority or the international preliminary examination
report, failing which the International Preliminary Examining Authority shall notify the
International Bureau accordingly and the International Bureau shall proceed as provided for
in the Administrative Instructions.
Box No. II: Priority
17.28 This part of the opinion or report is not relevant if the international application does
not claim priority. Furthermore, where priority is claimed, but the citations in the international
search report were all published before the earliest priority date, it is not necessary to
consider whether the priority claim is valid (see Chapter 6). In either of these cases, this Box
should not normally be included in the opinion or report.

Page 167
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

17.29 Where one or more citations of the international search report were published after
the earliest priority date, the validity of that earliest priority date requires checking (see
paragraph 6.03 for formal requirements and paragraph 6.05 for substantive requirements).
(a) Where the priority document is one which is in the records of the International
Authority, it should be obtained from those records.
(b) If a copy of the priority document (or a necessary translation) is not available
before preparation of the written opinion of the International Searching Authority because it
has not yet been provided by the applicant, and if that earlier application was not filed with
that Authority in its capacity as a national Office or the priority document is not available to
that Authority from a digital library in accordance with the Administrative Instructions, the
written opinion of the International Searching Authority may be established as if the priority
had been validly claimed and this fact is noted in item 1 of Box No. II.
(c) Where the priority document is provided by the applicant in compliance with
Rule 17.1 after the preparation of the search report and the written opinion of the
International Searching Authority, any written opinion of the International Preliminary
Examining Authority and/or the international preliminary examination report should
reconsider the validity of the priority claim.
Rule 66.7; Section 421
(d) Where the priority document is a foreign document and it is not already in the
file, the International Authority may request a copy of the document from the International
Bureau and, if necessary, a translation from the applicant. In the meantime, if the outcome
of the examination requires the issuing of an opinion, that opinion should be issued without
waiting to obtain the priority document and/or the translation (see (b), above, in the case of a
written opinion of the International Searching Authority). An appropriate comment should be
made under the heading “Additional observations, if necessary:” in Box No. II of the written
opinion. If such a copy of the priority document and/or the translation is not available
because of non-compliance by the applicant with Rule 17.1 within the relevant time period,
and if the priority document is not available to that Authority from a digital library in
accordance with the Administrative Instructions, any written opinion of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority and/or the international preliminary examination report may
be established as if the priority had not been claimed and this is indicated in the report.
Rule 64.1
17.30 Where the right to priority is invalid, item 2 of Box No. II of the written opinion or
international preliminary examination report must be completed.
17.31 “Additional observations” in item 3 of Box No. II relate to Priority considerations
only and not to clarity, descriptive support, defects or any other consideration relevant to
Box No. VIII. Such observations might include the reasons for which a priority claim was
considered to be invalid, or else an indication that the priority claim had been checked and
was considered to be valid.
Box No. III: Non-Establishment of Opinion with Regard to Novelty, Inventive Step and
Industrial Applicability
Article 17(2)(a)(i); Rules 43bis.1, 67
17.32 This part of the opinion or report explains why an opinion as regards novelty,
inventive step and industrial applicability may not have been established for some or all of
the subject matter of the international application. For example, Rules 43bis.1(b) and 67.1
establish that no International Authority shall be required to examine certain subject matter
within an international application, such as mathematical theories, plant or animal varieties
and methods for treatment of the human or animal body. The agreements between the
International Bureau and the International Preliminary Examining Authorities further qualify
this by excepting from exclusion any subject matter which is examined under the relevant
national grant procedures. See paragraph 17.60 and Chapter 9 for details of excluded
matter. The first two check boxes of Box No. III are used to indicate the extent to which no

Page 168
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

opinion has been established. In the written opinion of the International Searching Authority,
the reasons for not establishing an opinion will usually be identical to the reasons for not
establishing an international search and can, for example, be indicated by way of a
reference to the full explanation in the international search report (see paragraph 16.28) or in
the declaration under Article 17(2)(a) (see paragraph 9.40)).
− Subject Matter Excluded Under Rule 67.1
17.33 Where some or all claims are not examined for novelty, inventive step or industrial
applicability because they contain excluded subject matter, this observation is indicated in
the third check box of Box No. III of the written opinion or examination report.
− Clarity or Support
Rule 66.2(a)
17.34 Where the description, the claims, or the drawings are so unclear, or the claims
are so inadequately supported by the description that no meaningful opinion can be formed
on the questions of novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability of the claimed invention,
then the examination may be restricted to those claims, or parts of claims, that are
sufficiently clear and supported by the description to enable an opinion or report to be
prepared. Where an opinion cannot be established on a claim, the examiner marks the
appropriate check box in Box No. III (the 4th and/or the 5th check boxes) and includes
observations on lack of clarity and/or support to explain the limitation of the examination.
17.35 The issues of clarity and descriptive support of claims should, as appropriate, be
raised separately from considerations of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability at
Box No. VIII of the opinion or report (see Chapter 5 and paragraph 17.50).
− No International Search Made for Some or All Claims
Article 33(6)
17.36 Where the International Searching Authority has not established an international
search report and instead issued a declaration under Article 17 (relating to excluded subject
matter, clarity, lack of unity, etc.), the questions of novelty, inventive step and industrial
applicability cannot be addressed since there are no documents to consider under
Article 33(6), and this is noted using the sixth check box of Box No. III. (Note that this
applies even where Article 34 amendments may have overcome considerations under
Article 34(4)(a)(ii)).
− Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings
AI Annexes C
17.37 A failure to supply nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing information, or
have it comply with the Administrative Instructions standards, may preclude any meaningful
preliminary examination from being carried out. Refer to Chapter 15 (search stage) and
Chapter 18 (examination stage) for discussion of the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence
listings. The Authority should make a meaningful search or preliminary examination to the
extent that it is possible, but if some or all claims cannot be examined, the reasons are noted
in the final check boxes of Box No. III, and details may be provided in the Supplemental Box
if necessary.
Box No. IV: Lack of Unity of Invention
17.38 Irrespective of whether an Invitation to Pay Additional Fees (Form PCT/ISA/206 at
the international search stage) or an Invitation to Restrict or Pay Additional Fees
(Form PCT/IPEA/405 at the international preliminary examination stage) has been issued
(see paragraphs 17.61 and 17.65 and Chapter 10), where unity of invention is lacking, this
observation must be included in the first written opinion and, if still applicable, in subsequent
opinions and the report.

Page 169
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Article 34(3); Rule 70.13

17.39 If the applicant has paid additional fees before the International Searching
Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority, or has restricted the claims
before the International Preliminary Examining Authority in response to an invitation to do so,
or if the applicant has failed to respond to the invitation to pay additional fees or restrict the
claims (see paragraphs 10.74 to 10.82), this is also indicated in the opinion or report. The
possible indications (some of which are not relevant to the written opinion of the International
Searching Authority) are that:
(i) the claims have been restricted before the International Preliminary Examining
Authority;
(ii) additional fees have been paid without protest;
(iii) additional fees have been paid by the applicant under protest and, where
applicable, the protest fee was paid;
(iv) additional fees have been paid by the applicant under protest but the
applicable protest fee was not paid;
(v) the applicant has neither restricted the claims nor paid additional fees;
(vi) the examiner was of the opinion that the international application did not
comply with the requirement of unity of invention but decided not to issue an invitation to
restrict the claims or pay additional fees.
17.40 In addition, the final item of Box No. IV indicates for which parts of the international
application the opinion or report was established, in view of the findings on unity and any
restrictions which have been made or additional fees which may have been paid.
− Additional Fees Paid Under Protest
Rule 68.3(c); Section 603
17.41 In the case under Chapter II where the additional fees are paid under protest, the
text of the protest, together with the decision thereon, is annexed to the international
preliminary examination report if the applicant has so requested (see paragraph 10.80). For
the case under Chapter I where additional fees are paid under protest, see paragraphs 10.68
and 10.70.
Box No. V: Reasoned Statement Under Rule 66.2(a)(ii) with Regard to Novelty, Inventive
Step or Industrial Applicability; Citations and Explanations Supporting Such Statement
Article 35(2); Rules 43.5(b), 66.2(a)(ii), 70.6(a) (b), 70.7(b), 70.8; Sections 503, 611
17.42 A statement as to whether the claims appear to satisfy the criteria of novelty,
inventive step (non-obviousness) and industrial applicability (see paragraph 19.02) is made
in item 1 of Box No. V. The examiner makes this statement in relation to each claim which is
to be examined, that is, by the words “YES” or “NO,” or their equivalents in the language of
the report (in a written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority the
examiner may only refer to those which do not appear to satisfy the criteria). Each such
statement must be accompanied by relevant citations, explanations and observations, if any
(see paragraph 17.09) in item 2 of Box No. V. A statement on all three of the criteria should
be made. If a negative statement is made regarding lack of industrial applicability,
statements should still be made regarding novelty and inventive step if at all possible. The
examiner should always cite documents believed to support any negative statement with
respect to any of the claimed subject matter. The citation of these documents is made in
accordance with WIPO Standard ST.14.
Rules 43.5(e), 70.7(b); Section 604
17.43 Explanations should clearly indicate, with reference to the cited documents, the
reasons supporting the conclusions that any of the said criteria is or is not satisfied. If only
certain passages of the cited documents are relevant or particularly relevant, the examiner
should identify these, for example, by indicating the page, column or the lines where such

Page 170
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

passages appear. In the case of a patent document in a language other than English, the
examiner should preferably also indicate the corresponding part or passage of the English
member of the patent family if such a member is available.
17.44 Further guidance on the novelty considerations, inventive step consideration and
industrial applicability considerations are provided in Chapter 12, Chapter 13 and
Chapter 14, respectively.
Box No. VI: Certain Documents Cited
17.45 The examiner also mentions, as such, any published application or any patent
referred to in the report by virtue of Rule 64.3 and provides for each such published
application or patent the following indications:
(i) its date of publication;
(ii) its filing date, and its claimed priority date (if any);
Rule 70.7(b), 70.9; Section 507(a)
17.46 If the examiner has discovered, or the international search report has cited, a
relevant document which refers to a non-written disclosure, and the document was only
published on or after the relevant date of the international application, he indicates in the
written opinion and/or the international preliminary examination report:
(i) the kind of non-written disclosure;
(ii) the date on which the non-written public disclosure occurred;
(iii) the date on which the document was made available to the public.
Rule 70.7(b), 70.10; Section 507(b)
Rule 70.2(b)
17.47 The report may also indicate that, in the opinion of the International Searching
Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the priority date of such
published application or patent is not valid).
Rule 70.7(b)
17.48 Details concerning the manner of indicating certain other special categories of
documents which may be cited in the written opinion and/or the international preliminary
examination report as well as the manner of indicating the claims to which the documents
cited in such report are relevant can be found in Sections 507(c), (d) and (e) of the
Administrative Instructions (as set out, for the purposes of the international search report, in
paragraphs 16.69, 16.71 and 16.72).
Box No. VII: Certain Defects in the International Application
Rule 70.12
17.49 If, in the opinion of the examiner, defects exist in the form or contents of the
international application (for example, failure to comply with one or more of the requirements
specified in Rules 5 to 11), the examiner includes this opinion in Box No. VII of the written
opinion and/or examination report and also indicates the reasons therefore (see also
paragraphs 17.09, 17.13 and 17.14).
Box No. VIII: Certain Observations on the International Application
Rule 70.12
17.50 If, in the opinion of the examiner, there are significant and pertinent issues as to
the clarity of the claims, the description and the drawings, or the question whether the claims
are fully supported by the description, observations should be made to the effect in
Box No. VIII of the written opinion and/or examination report. In such a case, the examiner
should list the numbers of any relevant claims and indicate the reasons for lack of clarity
and/or support. In deciding whether or not to include any observations on these matters, due
account should be given to the significance and relevance of the observations in any further

Page 171
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

processing of the application. In particular, the examiner should take into consideration other
amendments that may be necessary to the claims, for example, to overcome any negative
statement with regard to novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) and/or industrial
applicability. Observations with regard to issues of clarity and support therefore need not be
included when it is highly likely that amendments will have to be made in order to overcome
other objections and these amendments would also resolve the clarity and support issues.
On the other hand, where an opinion or a report includes a positive statement with regard to
novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness) and industrial applicability in respect of all claims,
the opinion or report should raise any significant and pertinent matters concerning clarity and
support. (See also paragraphs 5.31 to 5.58 and 17.09).
Finalization of the Report
Rules 70.3, 70.4, 70.14; Section 612
17.51 When finalizing the international preliminary examination report, the Authority
indicates the date on which the demand for international preliminary examination was
submitted, the date on which the report was completed and the name and address of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority. These last-mentioned items may either be
completed when including the other data or when completing the report. Every written
opinion and international preliminary examination report indicates the name of an authorized
officer and of the International Authority responsible for that opinion or report.
Language of the Written Opinion and the International Preliminary Examination Report
Rules 48.3(a), (b), 70.17
17.52 The written opinion and the international preliminary examination report, together
with its annexes, if any, are established in the language of publication, or, if the international
search and/or the international preliminary examination is carried out on the basis of a
translation of the international application, in the language of that translation. An
international application filed in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Korean,
Japanese, Portuguese, Russian or Spanish is published in that language; an international
application filed in any other language is published in the language of a translation into one
of these languages.
Form of Objection
Rule 66.2(b)
17.53 For each ground of objection, the first written opinion (in general, this will be the
written opinion of the International Searching Authority) should indicate the part of the
international application which is deficient and the requirement of the PCT which is not met
either by referring to specific Articles or Rules, or by other clear explanation; it should also
give the reason for any objection.
17.54 If the cited art is such as to demonstrate lack of novelty or inventive step in the
main claim or claims, and if consequently there is lack of unity of invention between
dependent claims, if there is enough time, the applicant may be notified of this situation by
the International Searching Authority and invited to pay additional search fees (see also
paragraphs 10.60 et seq) prior to the international search report and the first written opinion
being established. Subsequently, if a demand for international preliminary examination is
filed and if, in the opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, any response
of the applicant (see paragraph 19.26) does not overcome the objection of lack of unity of
invention, the Authority thereafter adopts the procedure described in paragraphs 10.74 to
10.82.
Ensuring Report Is of Maximal Use for Later Stages
17.55 Substantive matter in the written opinion should normally be set out first. The
opinion should be drafted in such a manner as to facilitate further international preliminary
examination of the international application should it be amended, and, in particular, to avoid
the need for extensive re-reading should the examiner wish to issue one or more additional

Page 172
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

written opinions during the international preliminary examination (see paragraphs 19.26 to
19.29). Although the examiner is not obliged to do so, he should try to indicate to the
applicant those amendments which would avoid a negative statement in the international
preliminary examination report if a demand for international preliminary examination is filed.
In the case of the written opinion of the International Searching Authority, the report should
be set out so that it will be easily used by designated Offices in the event that its content is
published as an “international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter I of the Patent
Cooperation Treaty)” (see paragraph 2.18).
Invitation to Correct or Amend
Rules 43bis.1(c)
17.56 The written opinion of the International Searching Authority includes a notification
to the applicant that in the event that he demands international preliminary examination he is
invited to file with the International Preliminary Examining Authority his observations, to
correct any formal deficiencies and otherwise to submit amendments to the description,
claims and drawings before the expiration of the time limit within which he may file his
demand (see paragraph 22.14).
Rules 66.2(c), (d)
17.57 Any written opinion established by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority must fix the time limit within which the applicant must reply. The time limit must be
reasonable under the circumstances. It is normally two months after the date of the written
opinion. In no case may it be shorter than one month after the said date. It must be at least
two months after the date when the international search report was transmitted along with
the written opinion of the International Searching Authority. In no case should it be more
than three months after the date of the written opinion.
17.58 Where a demand for Chapter II is filed, failure to reply to the invitation, whether
from the written opinion of the International Searching Authority or from a written opinion
actually established by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, may cause the
international preliminary examination report to be established with a negative determination
in relation to certain claims.
Cases Where Partial Written Opinion or No Written Opinion to Be Established
17.59 The statement in paragraph 17.09, that the written opinion should cover all the
relevant issues, only sets out the general rule. There may be cases when either the
Authority is not required to perform an international preliminary examination covering the
whole of the international application, or else that it is more efficient to defer some matters
until later. These may include:
(i) only inventions which have been searched need be the subject of international
preliminary examination (Rule 66.1(e)) and consequently included within the written opinion;
(ii) cases where the international application relates to subject matter on which
the International Preliminary Examining Authority is not required to carry out an international
preliminary examination;
(iii) cases where the claims lack unity of invention;
(iv) situations in which a fundamental objection arises, for example, it is clear that
certain claims lack novelty and that the claims will have to be drastically recast; or
(v) where the written opinion is established by the International Preliminary
Examining Authority, the applicant may have submitted substantial amendments which add
subject matter which goes beyond the disclosure of the international application as originally
filed.

Page 173
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Excluded Subject Matter

Article 34(4)(b); Rule 66.2(a)(i)
17.60 In the event that the examiner finds that the international application contains
subject matter falling within Article 34(4)(a)(i) (that is, subject matter on which the
International Authority is not required, under Rule 67 and Rule 43bis.1(b), to carry out
examination) or that all the claims of the international application lack compliance with
Article 34(4)(a)(ii) (that is, the description, the claims or the drawings are so unclear, or the
claims are so inadequately supported by the description that no meaningful opinion can be
formed), he indicates this defect or these defects in his first written opinion and does not go
into the question, in that opinion, of whether the claimed invention appears to be novel,
appears to involve an inventive step and is industrially applicable. (As discussed in
Chapter 9, these instances should be rare.) Where any such defect affects only some of the
claims, a similar approach is adopted in respect of such claims. These grounds for limiting
the scope of the opinion are considered in detail in paragraph 9.17. It should be emphasized
that, although the first written opinion is drawn up by the International Searching Authority,
according to Rule 43bis.1(b), the conditions which are considered for this purpose are those
which would apply to the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Lack of Unity of Invention
− Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority
17.61 The written opinion of the International Searching Authority should be established
for those inventions for which the international search report is established.
17.62 If the applicant does not comply with the invitation to pay the required additional
fees, the written opinion of the International Searching Authority is established on the first
claimed invention (main invention) and on those inventions for which additional fees have
been paid. The examiner indicates which inventions form the basis of the written opinion.
− Written Opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the International
Preliminary Examination Report
17.63 Where the International Searching Authority has already issued an invitation to pay
additional international search fees, or where the International Searching Authority could
have issued an invitation to pay additional search fees but chose not to, it may be
appropriate for the International Preliminary Examining Authority to issue an “Invitation to
Restrict or Pay Additional Fees” (Form PCT/IPEA/405).
Article 34(3)(c); Rule 68.4, 68.5
17.64 If the applicant does not comply with the invitation (by not paying the additional
fees or by not restricting the claims either sufficiently or at all), the written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority or international preliminary examination report
is established on those parts of the international application which relate to what appears to
be the first claimed invention (main invention) and the examiner indicates the relevant facts
in such report.
17.65 The issues and processes concerning unity of invention, including payment of
additional fees under protest, are covered in more detail in Chapter 10.
Dealing with Major Objections First
17.66 In the event that fundamental objections arise, including ones which have been
introduced by amendment (only applicable to international preliminary examination), it may
be more appropriate to deal with these objections before making a detailed examination; if,
for example, the claims need re-casting, it may be pointless to raise objections to the clarity
of some dependent claims or to a passage in the description which may have to be amended
or even deleted as a consequence. However, if there are other major objections, these
should be dealt with. The examiner should, at the first written opinion stage, seek to make
the maximum impact with the broad aim of providing a useful international preliminary report

Page 174
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

on patentability (Chapter I of the Patent Cooperation Treaty) if the applicant does not
demand international preliminary examination and bringing proceedings to a conclusion
without any undue delay in order to meet the relevant time limits if international preliminary
examination is demanded (see paragraphs 19.07 to 19.10).
Other Considerations
Citation of Certain Documents in the International Search Report
17.67 The international search report may cite a document which is not in a working
language of the International Searching Authority because the search examiner knows or
has strong evidence leading him to suspect (for example, from the drawings, from an
abstract, a corresponding patent in a known language, or from a translation produced by
some other person familiar with the language of the document) that the document is relevant.
Where the intent is to provide more than one written opinion, in that circumstance, the
examiner, in his first written opinion, may cite the document on the basis of similar evidence;
an abstract or corresponding document in a working language of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority, if known to the examiner, will also be cited. If, however, the
applicant’s response to the first written opinion disputes the relevance of the document and
gives specific reasons, the examiner should consider whether, in the light of these reasons
and of the other prior art available to him, he is justified in pursuing the matter. If so, he may
obtain a translation of the document (or merely the relevant part of it if that can be easily
identified). If he remains of the view that the document is relevant, he should consider
whether it is necessary to send a copy of the translation to the applicant either with an
additional written opinion or by way of an informal communication with the applicant.
Additional Documents Taken Into Consideration in Certain Cases
Article 33(6)
17.68 Although, in principle, international preliminary examination is based on the
international search report (and any supplementary international search report available to
the International Preliminary Examining Authority), the examiner should not be deterred from
looking for relevant documents which he personally knows, or has reason to suspect, exist, if
he can locate such documents in a short time from material available to him. Such
documents are considered on the same footing as the documents cited in the international
search report.

17.69 If the International Bureau transmits a third party observation to the International
Preliminary Examining Authority in time to be taken into account in drawing up the
international preliminary examination report, any prior art referred to in the observation
should be considered in the same way as if it had been referred to in the international search
report, provided that either a copy of the prior art is included or it is otherwise immediately
available to the examiner. The examiner is not required to comment on a document referred
to in a third party observation unless he considers it appropriate to cite it. The examiner
may, if considered useful, state in Box No. V that third party observations submitted on
specified dates have been taken into account in preparing the opinion on novelty and
inventive step.
Inconsistencies Between Description and Claims
17.70 While any serious inconsistencies between the claims and description as filed
should be objected to (see paragraphs 5.29 and 5.30), it should be borne in mind that the
claims may also require substantial amendment. In such a situation during the international
preliminary examination procedure, the examiner might invite the applicant to amend the
description to be in conformity with the final form of the amended claims even though the
final form of the main claims may still not be settled. This procedure may help the examiner
to expedite the issuance of the international preliminary examination report if a demand for
international preliminary examination is filed. However, it should also be appreciated that the

Page 175
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

applicant should not be put to unnecessary expense and trouble in providing an amended
description if there is any likelihood that the claims will have to be changed again.
Recommending Amendments
17.71 The examiner should not suggest amendments merely because he thinks they will
improve the wording of the description or claims. A pedantic approach is undesirable; what
is important is that the meaning of the description and the claims should be clear. Although
the examiner is not obliged to do so, he should try to indicate to the applicant those
amendments which would avoid a negative statement in the international preliminary
examination report if a demand for international preliminary examination is filed. It must be
emphasized that it is not part of the duty of the examiner to invite the applicant to amend the
international application in a particular way to meet an objection, since the drafting of the
application is the applicant’s responsibility and he should be free to amend in any way he
chooses provided that the amendment removes the deficiency and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of the PCT. However, it may sometimes be useful if the examiner suggests, at
least in general terms, an acceptable form of amendment; but if he does so, he should make
it clear that the suggestion is merely for the assistance of the applicant and that other forms
of amendment will be considered. The form of the amendment should be as prescribed in
Rule 66.8.
Consideration of Responses to the Written Opinion
17.72 If, in the opinion of the examiner, issues such as: (1) the clarity of the claims, the
description, and the drawings; (2) the question as to whether the claims are fully supported
by the description; and/or (3) defects existing in the form or contents of the international
application, have not been suitably resolved by the applicant in the prescribed time limit for
establishing the international preliminary examination report, the examiner may indicate
unresolved issues and the reasons therefor in the report.
17.73 If the applicant submits arguments in response to the written opinion, the examiner
should comment on the applicant’s relevant arguments in the written opinion of the
International Preliminary Examining Authority and/or the international preliminary
examination report.

Page 176
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART VI
THE INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION STAGE (OTHER THAN THE
INTERNATIONAL PRELIMINARY REPORT)

Chapter 18
Preliminary Procedure on Receipt of the Demand

Use of Facsimile Machine, Telegraph, Teleprinter, Etc.

Rule 92.1(a), 92.4(d), (g), (h)
18.01 The International Preliminary Examining Authority may agree to receive a
document by facsimile machine, telegraph, teleprinter or other like means of communication
resulting in the filing of a printed or written document. If required under Rule 92.4(d), it
checks whether the original document is timely furnished in a form complying with the
requirements of Rule 92.1(a) within 14 days after the document was transmitted. If the
original document is timely received, or not required, the International Preliminary Examining
Authority considers that the document was validly submitted on the date on which it was
received by the means mentioned above. If a document is considered not to have been
submitted, the International Preliminary Examining Authority notifies the applicant
accordingly (Form PCT/IPEA/423).
Basis for International Preliminary Examination
18.02 Box No. IV of the demand Form is divided into two parts. The first part provides for
the statement concerning amendments. The second part provides for the indication of the
language for the purposes of international preliminary examination. Details on both parts are
given in the following paragraphs.
Statement Concerning Amendments
Rules 53.9, 60.1(f)
18.03 The first part of Box No. IV of the demand Form provides check boxes for the
applicant to indicate the basis on which international preliminary examination should start.
Where none of the boxes are marked or where the applicant has indicated that the
international preliminary examination is to start on the basis of the international application as
originally filed, the file is forwarded to the examiner as soon as all formal (including any
required translation of the international application and/or of amendments, see
paragraphs 22.12 to 22.14) and fee matters are resolved.
Article 34; Rules 60.1(g), 69.1(e); Section 602(a)(i) to (iii), (b)
18.04 Where the international preliminary examination is to take into account
amendments under Article 34, but the applicant failed to submit them with the demand, the
International Preliminary Examining Authority invites the applicant (Form PCT/IPEA/431)
within a reasonable time limit fixed in the invitation to submit the amendments. Whether the
amendments are submitted with the demand or subsequently, they are marked in
accordance with Section 602(a)(i) to (iii) and (b) of the Administrative Instructions before the
file is forwarded to the examiner.
Article 19; Rule 62.1; Section 602
18.05 Where the applicant has marked the appropriate check box in Box No. IV of the
demand that amendments under Article 19 and any accompanying statement are to be taken
into account, the International Preliminary Examining Authority indicates on the last sheet of
the demand whether a copy of such amendments and any accompanying statement was
actually submitted with the demand. Where no copy of the amendments under Article 19
was submitted with the demand, examination does not start until a copy of such amendment
and any accompanying statement are received from the International Bureau. After the
International Bureau receives the demand, it promptly transmits to the International
Preliminary Examining Authority the copy of the amendments under Article 19 and any

Page 177
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

accompanying statement submitted as well as the letter required under Rule 46.5(b). The
International Preliminary Examining Authority marks the copy of the amendments submitted
with the demand or received later, in accordance with Section 602(a)(i) to (iii) and (b) of the
Administrative Instructions before the file is forwarded to the examiner. If no amendments
under Article 19 have been made at the time when the demand is received by the
International Bureau, the International Preliminary Examining Authority is so informed by the
International Bureau. However, any International Preliminary Examining Authority can waive
the sending by mail of the information that no Article 19 amendments were received by the
International Bureau (Form PCT/IB/337), but instead may opt to receive such information in
electronic form.
Article 19; Rules 46.1, 53.9(b), 69.1(d)
18.06 If the same national Office or intergovernmental organization which acts as
International Searching Authority is also to act as International Preliminary Examining
Authority and wishes to start the international preliminary examination at the same time as
the international search in accordance with Rule 69.1(b), but the demand includes a
statement that the start of the international preliminary examination is to be postponed under
Rule 53.9(b) , the International Preliminary Examining Authority waits until it receives a copy
of any amendments made under Article 19 or a notice from the applicant that he does not
wish to make amendments under Article 19 before beginning the international preliminary
examination. Where neither a copy of the amendments nor a notice has reached the
International Preliminary Examining Authority by the expiration of 16 months from the priority
date or two months from the date of transmittal of the international search report, whichever
expires later (the time limit in accordance with Rule 46.1 for filing amendments under
Article 19), examination starts on the basis of the documents in the file.
Language for the Purposes of International Preliminary Examination
Rule 55.2
18.07 The second part of Box No. IV of the demand Form provides for the indication (on
the dotted line) of the language in which international preliminary examination is to be carried
out; it also provides check boxes to be marked depending on what that language is. That
language will be:
Rule 55.2(a)
(i) the language in which the international application was filed (that will be the
case in most instances);
Rule 55.2(b)
(ii) the language of a translation furnished for the purposes of the international
search (in a case where the language in which the international application was filed is not a
language in which the international search is to be carried out);
Rules 48.3(b), 55.2(b)
(iii) the language in which the international application was published (in a case
where the language in which the international application was filed and the language in which
the international search was carried out are not languages of publication; or
Rule 55.2(a), (a-bis), (b)
(iv) the language of a translation furnished for the purposes of international
preliminary examination, provided that that language is a language accepted by the Authority
and a language of publication (in a case where neither the language of a translation
furnished for the purposes of international search nor the language of publication are
languages accepted for the purposes of international preliminary examination). This
translation must include any element referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) furnished by the
applicant under Rule 20.3(b) or 20.6(a) and any part of the description, claims or drawings
furnished by the applicant under Rule 20.5(b) or 20.6(a) which is considered to have been
contained in the international application under Rule 20.6(b).

Page 178
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

18.08 Where none of the check boxes is marked, the file is forwarded to the examiner as
soon as it is determined what is the language in which international preliminary examination
will be carried out (and when any required translation of the international application and/or
of amendment) has been furnished) and when all other formal and fee matters are resolved.
Rule 55.2(c), 55.3(c),(d)
18.09 Where the international preliminary examination is to be carried out on the basis of
a translation of the international application and/or of amendments, but the applicant failed to
submit them with the demand (including translations of any late filed missing elements or
parts of the application - see paragraph 18.07(iv)), the International Preliminary Examining
Authority invites the applicant (Form PCT/IPEA/443) to submit the missing items within a
reasonable time limit fixed in the invitation. The same applies where a letter required under
Rule 66.8(a) or Rule 46.5(b) is not provided in the language of the translation of the
application. Whether the sheets containing the translation and/or amendments are submitted
with the demand or subsequently, they are marked in accordance with Section 602(a)(i) to
(iii) and (b) of the Administrative Instructions before the file is forwarded to the examiner.
Furthermore, where a translation filed according to Rule 55.2(a) does not comply with the
physical requirements of Rule 11 to an extent necessary for the purposes of international
preliminary examination, the International Preliminary Examining Authority will also invite the
applicant to provide a correction of that translation. If the applicant fails to comply with an
invitation to furnish a translation of an amendment, the amendment shall not be taken into
account during international preliminary examination. If the applicant fails to comply with an
invitation to furnish an accompanying letter, the amendment need not be taken into account
during international preliminary examination.
Documents, Etc., for the International Preliminary Examining Authority
18.10 The examiner will, where the International Preliminary Examining Authority is part
of the same national Office, or intergovernmental organization as the International Searching
Authority, have in the file in addition to the demand (see paragraph 19.07), description,
drawings (if any), the claims, as originally filed and the abstract as originally filed or
established by the International Searching Authority, or, where necessary, their translation
(see paragraph 18.11); any amendments proposed to date; a notification that no
amendments have been filed or will be filed under Article 19, unless waived by the Authority;
the international search report with the applicant’s comments (if any), and copies of any cited
documents; the written opinion of the International Searching Authority; and, depending on
the circumstances, the request and correspondence concerning formalities from the
receiving Office, the International Searching Authority or the International Bureau, the priority
document as well as any required translations (see paragraphs 6.17 and 18.07).
18.11 Where a translation of the international application is required under Rule 55.2 and
the International Searching Authority and the International Preliminary Examining Authority
are part of the same national Office or intergovernmental organization, the international
preliminary examination is carried out on the basis of any translation transmitted to the
International Searching Authority under Rule 23.1(b) unless the applicant furnishes a further
translation for the purposes of the international preliminary examination.
18.12 In the cases where the international search has been performed by an
International Searching Authority which is not part of the same national Office or
intergovernmental organization as the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the
various elements of the file making up the international application will be supplied to the
International Preliminary Examining Authority as follows:
Article 31(6)(a)
(i) the demand: by the applicant;
(ii) the request, description, drawings (if any), claims, and sequence listing filed
under the provisions of Section 801 (if applicable), as originally filed: by the International
Bureau;

Page 179
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rule 43bis
(iii) the international search report or the declaration under Article 17(2)(a), and
the written opinion established under Rule 43bis.1: by the International Bureau;
Rule 55.2
(iv) where neither the language in which the international application is filed nor
the language in which the international application is published is accepted by the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, a translation of the international application
into a language which is both a language accepted by the International Preliminary
Examining Authority and a language of publication: by the applicant (see, however,
paragraph 18.11);
Rule 62
(v) amendments and statement under Article 19 (if any): where the applicant has
marked the appropriate check box in Box No. IV of the demand (Form PCT/IPEA/401) that
amendments under Article 19 are to be taken into account, the International Preliminary
Examining Authority indicates on the last sheet of the demand whether a copy of such
amendments was actually received with the demand. Where no copy of the amendments
under Article 19 was received with the demand, a copy of such amendment will be
transmitted by the International Bureau promptly after that Bureau receives the demand. If
no amendments under Article 19 have been made at the time when the demand is received
by the International Bureau, the International Preliminary Examining Authority is so informed
by the International Bureau. If, at the time of filing such amendments, the demand has
already been submitted, the applicant should also submit a copy of such amendments to the
International Preliminary Examining Authority. In any event, the International Bureau will
promptly transmit a copy of any amendments under Article 19 to the International Preliminary
Examining Authority;
Rule 13ter.1; Section 208; AI Annex C
(vi) nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing in paper and/or electronic form,
both forms complying with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative
Instructions: where the International Searching Authority and the International Preliminary
Examining Authority are part of the same national Office or intergovernmental organization,
by the International Searching Authority; otherwise, by the applicant;
Rule 66.1
(vii) amendments according to Article 34(2)(b): by the applicant;
(viii) copies of any documents cited in the international search report which are not
available from the databases of the International Preliminary Examining Authority: by the
International Searching Authority;
Rule 66.7(a)
(ix) priority document: by the International Bureau;
Rule 66.7(b)
(x) translation of the priority document where required: by the applicant (subject
to an invitation to furnish the translation having been made, see paragraph 18.16).
18.13 The examiner should keep in mind that the documents making up the international
application may contain, instead of an international search report, a declaration according to
Article 17(2)(a, that is, a declaration by the International Searching Authority that it considers
that the international application relates to a subject matter which it was not required to
search and decided not to search, or that the description, the claims, or the drawings failed to
comply with the prescribed requirements to such an extent that a meaningful search could
not be carried out. In this case, the examiner should appraise the declaration as if it were the
international search report.

Page 180
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Language of the International Application and of the Demand

Rule 55
18.14 The demand submitted to the International Preliminary Examining Authority must
be in the language of the international application or, if the international application has been
filed in a language other than the language in which it is published, in the language of
publication or, if a translation of the international application is required under Rule 55.2, in
the language of that translation. If the demand is not submitted in this language, the
Authority invites the applicant to correct the defect (Form PCT/IPEA/404, see
paragraph 22.24). If the applicant does not timely comply with the invitation, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority considers the demand as having not been submitted and
issues a declaration to that effect by sending a copy of Form PCT/IPEA/407 to the applicant
and the International Bureau.
18.15 If the international preliminary examination is carried out on a translation of the
original application into a language of publication, or on a translation under Rule 55.2, it may
be difficult to determine whether any amendments filed under Article 34(2)(b) extend the
content of the international application as filed. See paragraph 20.11 for procedure in such a
case.
Priority Document and Translation Thereof
Rule 66.7(a), (b)
18.16 Where the international application claims the priority of a previous application and
the examiner needs the priority document, the examiner should request the International
Bureau to furnish promptly a copy of the priority document. When the priority document is
not in the language or in one of the languages of the International Preliminary Examining
Authority, the examiner may invite the applicant to furnish a translation of the priority
document (see paragraph 6.17). If the examiner finds that the requested priority document
or (where required) the translation have not been timely furnished, he may establish the
international preliminary examination report as if the priority has not been claimed in the
international application and indicate this in the report.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Listings
Section 208; AI Annex C
18.17 Where the international application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide
and/or amino acid sequences and a corresponding sequence listing in paper (or image file)
form and in electronic form for the purposes of international preliminary examination (both
forms complying with the standard provided for in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions)
the International Preliminary Examining Authority carries out the international preliminary
examination on the basis of those listings.
Rule 13ter.1, 13ter.2, Section 208; AI Annex C
18.18 Where the international application contains disclosure of one or more nucleotide
and/or amino acid sequences but does not contain a corresponding sequence listing in
paper (or image file) form and/or in electronic form complying with the standard provided for
in Annex C of the Administrative Instructions, the International Preliminary Examining
Authority may invite the applicant (with Form PCT/lPEA/441) to furnish to it, within a time limit
fixed in the invitation, a sequence listing in paper (or image file) form and/or electronic form,
as the case may be, complying with the standard. The furnishing of a sequence listing in
response to an invitation by the International Preliminary Examining Authority may be subject
to the payment of a fee set by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, which may
not exceed 25% of the international filing fee (not taking into account any fee for each sheet
of the international application in excess of 30 sheets). If the applicant complies with the
invitation, the procedure outlined in the preceding paragraph applies. If the applicant does
not comply with the invitation within the time limit or the response to the invitation is
defective, the International Preliminary Examining Authority is required to carry out the

Page 181
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

international preliminary examination only to the extent that a meaningful examination can be
carried out without the sequence listing (see paragraph 9.39).

Page 182
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 19
Examination Procedure Before The International Preliminary Examining Authority

General
19.01 The present chapter sets out the procedure before the International Preliminary
Examining Authority with respect to international preliminary examination from the time such
examination starts.
Article 33(1), (2), (3), (4)
19.02 The objective of international preliminary examination of an international
application is to formulate a preliminary and non-binding opinion as to:
(i) whether the claimed invention appears to be “novel” (see Chapter 12);
(ii) whether the claimed invention appears to involve an “inventive step” (is
non-obvious) (see Chapter 13); and
(iii) whether the claimed invention appears to be “industrially applicable” (see
Chapter 14).
Article 33(5); Rule 5.1(a)(iii)
19.03 Although these criteria serve as the basis for international preliminary examination,
any Contracting State may apply additional or different criteria for the purposes of deciding
whether or not, in that State, the claimed invention will be protected (that is, by a patent, an
inventor’s certificate, a utility certificate or a utility model).
19.04 In addition to these basic three criteria, the examiner should be aware of the
following two criteria that are implicitly contained in the Treaty and the Regulations:
(i) the invention must be such that it can be carried out by a person skilled in the
art (after proper instruction by the application); this follows from Article 5. See
paragraphs 5.43 et seq;
(ii) the invention must relate to a technical field (Rule 5.1(a)(i)), must be
concerned with a technical problem (Rule 5.1(a)(iii)) and must have technical features in
terms of which the subject matter for which protection is sought can be defined in the claim
(Rule 6.3(a)) (see paragraph 5.04). The PCT does not require that a claimed invention be an
advance over the prior art. However, advantageous effects, if any, may be relevant to
determining “inventive step” (see Chapter 13).
Articles 34(2)(c), 35
19.05 The results of the international preliminary examination, in the course of which one
or more written opinions may be issued to the applicant by the International Preliminary
Examining Authority and other communications with the applicant may occur, are given in an
international preliminary examination report established by that Authority.
Start of, and Time Limit for, International Preliminary Examination
Article 31(2), (3), (4)
19.06 Prior to the start of international preliminary examination of an international
application, the applicant must, of course, have filed a demand (Form PCT/IPEA/401) that
his international application be made the subject of an international preliminary examination.
Chapter 18 gives details of the actions which take place on receipt of the demand before the
examiner begins the international preliminary examination itself.
Start of Examination
Rule 69.1
19.07 The International Preliminary Examining Authority normally starts the international
preliminary examination when:
(a) it is in possession of:

Page 183
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(i) the demand;

(ii) the amount due (in full) for the handling fee and the preliminary examination
fee, including, where applicable, the late payment fee under Rule 58bis.2;
(iii) if the applicant is required to furnish a translation under Rule 55.2, that
translation; and
(iv) either the international search report or the declaration by the International
Searching Authority under Article 17(2)(a) that no international search report will be
established, and the written opinion established under Rule 43bis.1;
and
(b) the time limit within which the applicant was permitted to file the demand (see
paragraph 3.07) has expired, or earlier if the applicant has expressly requested an earlier
start.
19.08 The exceptions to the above are as follows:
Rule 69.1(c)
(a) Where the statement concerning amendments contains an indication that
amendments under Article 19 are to be taken into account (Rule 53.9(a)(i)), the International
Preliminary Examining Authority does not start the international preliminary examination until
it receives a copy of the amendments concerned.
Rule 69.1(e)
(b) Where the statement concerning amendments contains an indication that
amendments under Article 34 are submitted with the demand (Rule 53.9(c)) but no such
amendments are, in fact, submitted, the International Preliminary Examining Authority does
not start the international preliminary examination until it receives the amendments or the
time limit fixed in the invitation referred to in Rule 60.1(g) expires (see paragraph 18.04),
whichever occurs first.
Rule 69.1(b) and (d)
(c) If the national Office or intergovernmental organization that acts as
International Searching Authority also acts as International Preliminary Examining Authority,
the international preliminary examination may, if that Office or organization so wishes, start at
the same time as the international search (subject to the possible need to invite the applicant
to provide copies of amendments under Article 34, as noted in paragraph (b), above),
provided that the applicant has not indicated (under Rule 53.9(b)) in the statement of
amendments that examination is to be postponed until after the expiry of the time limit for
filing amendments under Article 19 (such amendments only being permitted after the
international search report has been received). Where the statement concerning
amendments contains such an indication, the International Preliminary Examining Authority
does not start the international preliminary examination until it receives a copy of any
amendments made under Article 19, or a subsequent notice from the applicant that he does
not wish to make amendments under Article 19, or the time limit under Rule 46.1 for filing
Article 19 amendments expires, whichever occurs first.
Rule 45bis.8(c), (d)
19.09 Any supplementary international search reports which are transmitted to the
Authority in sufficient time should be taken into account for the purpose of a written opinion
or international preliminary examination report as if they were a part of the main international
search report. On the other hand, supplementary international search reports do not need to
be taken into account if they are received by the Authority after it has started to draw up an
opinion or report.

Page 184
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Time Limit for Completing Examination

Rule 69.2
19.10 The time limit for the establishment of the international preliminary examination
report is the same for all International Preliminary Examining Authorities and is set out in
Rule 69.2. This time limit may not exceed whichever expires last of:
(i) 28 months from the priority date;
(ii) six months from the time period provided under Rule 69.1 for the start of the
international preliminary examination; or
(iii) six months from the date of receipt by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority of the translation furnished under Rule 55.2.
19.11 If, in case of lack of unity of invention, the time limit cannot be met, the
international preliminary examination report must be established promptly after the receipt of
additional preliminary examination fees or after the expiration of the time limit for payment of
such fees, if no such payment is made.
Rule 69.1(b), (b-bis)
19.12 Where the International Preliminary Examining Authority is part of the same
national Office or intergovernmental organization as the International Searching Authority,
the international search and the international preliminary examination may start at the same
time. In such a situation, if the application does not comply with Article 34(2)(c), the
International Searching Authority will issue a written opinion. Any further written opinions will
be issued by the International Preliminary Examining Authority. However, if a positive
international preliminary examination report can be issued, the International Preliminary
Examining Authority may establish the international preliminary examination report directly
without the issuance of a written opinion by the International Searching Authority. See
paragraph 19.22.
First Stage of International Preliminary Examination
General
19.13 The examiner should consider if unity of invention exists. If the examiner finds that
lack of unity exists, he may issue an invitation to restrict the claims to a single searched
invention or subject to Rule 66.1(e) pay additional fees to examine additional inventions
before carrying out a top-up search or the issuance of either a written opinion at the
international preliminary examination stage or the international preliminary examination
report. See Chapter 10 for further details.
19.14 The international preliminary examination is carried out in accordance with
Article 34 and Rule 66. A written opinion will normally have been established on the
application by the International Searching Authority. Usually this is considered as the first
written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority (see paragraph 3.19 for
the exceptions to this). The examiner performing the international preliminary examination, if
he has not already done so during the international search, studies the description, the
drawings (if any), and the claims of the international application, including any amendments
and observations which may have been filed, and the documents describing the prior art as
cited in the international search report, as well as any documents cited in a supplementary
international search report and/or submitted by third parties (see also paragraph 17.69),
where appropriate). The examiner then carries out a top-up search in accordance with
Rule 66.1ter unless he considers that such a search would serve no useful purpose. He then
determines whether a further written opinion (or a first written opinion in the exceptional case
where a written opinion of the International Searching Authority has either not been prepared
or else is not treated as the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining
Authority) is required.

Page 185
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Top-up Searches
Rule 66.1ter
19.15 In general, the examiner should carry out a top-up search during the international
preliminary examination process. However, when he considers that a top-up search would
serve no useful purpose, he need not carry out such a search. This is the case, for example,
when it is decided that the international application, in its entirety, relates to subject matter on
which the International Preliminary Examining Authority is not required to carry out an
international preliminary examination, or that the international application is so unclear or the
claims are so inadequately supported by the description that no meaningful opinion can be
formed on the novelty, inventive step, or industrial applicability, of the claimed invention (see
paragraph 17.35). The same applies when no international search report has been
established for certain claims and it is thus decided not to carry out an international
preliminary examination on these claims (see paragraph 17.36). Note, however, that when
any of the above situations applies to only part of the claimed subject matter or where there
is lack of unity of invention, a top-up search should still be carried out but may be restricted
to those parts of the international application that are the subject of international preliminary
examination.
19.16 In the case of non-unity where there is more than one invention claimed in the
application for which international preliminary examination is demanded, the examiner may
first issue an invitation to restrict the claims or pay additional examination fees and then
perform the top-up search for all inventions for which preliminary examination fees have
been paid, provided that any such inventions are not excluded from international preliminary
examination by the examiner under Rule 66.1(e).
19.17 As a general rule, a top-up search will be conducted for all the claims that are the
subject of international preliminary examination. In the special case that the application is
amended but the basis for the amendments could not be found, and/or there is no letter
explaining the basis, and the examiner decides under Rule 70.2(c) or Rule 70.2(c-bis) to
establish the report as if the amendments had not been made, the top-up search may be
limited to the scope of the claims forming the basis for the report.
19.18 A top-up search is normally carried out at the start of the international preliminary
examination. In certain cases, it may be delayed to a later stage before the establishment of
the international preliminary examination report.
Rule 66.1ter
19.19 The main objective of the top-up search is to discover any relevant documents
referred to in Rule 64 which have become available to the International Preliminary
Examining Authority for search subsequent to the date on which the international search
report was established. The top-up search is primarily directed towards the earlier filed but
later published patent applications or patents within the meaning of Rule 64.3. However, it
should also be directed to normal prior art (Rule 64.1) or evidence of non-written disclosures
(Rule 64.2) with the aim of discovering any such documents which had not been available to
the International Searching Authority due to certain circumstances such as a delay in
collecting the documents into its database.
19.20 The scope of the top-up search does not normally extend beyond that of the
international search. However, the final determination as to the exact scope of the top-up
search is left to the examiner.
Rules 66.1ter, 70.7, 70.10
19.21 It should be noted that no specific search report will be established after a top-up
search and that only documents of particular relevance discovered in the top-up search need
to be indicated in the international preliminary examination report. If any document
discovered in the top-up search is used to support any negative statement with respect to
any of the claimed subject matter, it should be cited in Box No. V of the report (see

Page 186
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

paragraph 17.42), and any newly discovered documents as defined in Rule 64.2 and
Rule 64.3 should be cited in Box. No. VI of the report (see paragraphs 17.46 and 17.47).
Cases Where No Written Opinion Is Required
Article 34(2)(c); Rule 69.1(b)
19.22 If the same Authority acts as both the International Searching Authority and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, and a demand has been filed before the
written opinion of the International Searching Authority is prepared, no written opinion (see
paragraphs 17.01 to 17.08) is required and the examiner may immediately establish the
international preliminary examination report if:
(i) the claimed invention satisfies the criteria specified in Article 33(1) (novelty,
inventive step and industrial applicability);
(ii) the application complies with the requirements of the PCT as regards the form
and contents of the international application;
(iii) the application meets the requirements on the clarity of the claims, the
descriptions and the drawings and the claims are fully supported by the description as
provided for in Article 35(2) and Rule 70.12(ii) or the examiner does not wish to make any
observations thereon (Rule 66.2(a)(v));
(iv) no amendment goes beyond the disclosure in the international application as
filed;
(v) all claims relate to an invention in respect of which an international search
report is being established and an international preliminary examination report is being
established in respect of all the claims; and
(vi) if applicable, a nucleotide and/or amino acid sequence listing is available in
such a form that a meaningful international preliminary examination can be carried out.
Furthermore, if the International Preliminary Examining Authority does not treat the written
opinion of the International Searching Authority as a written opinion of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority for the purposes of Rule 66.2(a), it similarly need not
prepare a written opinion and may proceed directly to the international preliminary
examination report provided that criteria (i) through (vi) above are satisfied.
19.23 A further written opinion is not mandatory where the written opinion of the
International Searching Authority is treated as the first written opinion of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority. The examiner takes into consideration any comments or
amendments made by the applicant when he establishes the international preliminary
examination report.
Cases Where a Further Written Opinion May Be Issued
19.24 Assuming that the written opinion of the International Searching Authority is treated
as the first written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, as noted
above no further written opinion need be issued before the international preliminary
examination report, even if there are objections outstanding. However, where the applicant
has made a credible attempt to overcome or rebut the objections in the written opinion of the
International Searching Authority, but failed to satisfy the examiner that all the relevant
criteria are met, a further written opinion may, at the discretion of the International
Preliminary Examining Authority, be issued if there is sufficient time available to establish the
international preliminary examination report prior to expiration of the time period set in
Rule 69.2 for establishment of the international preliminary examination report. Where the
International Preliminary Examining Authority has carried out a top-up search and intends to
raise objections based on prior art documents discovered in the top-up search, a further
written opinion should be issued.

Page 187
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Claims for Which No International Search Report Has Been Established

Rule 66.1(e)
19.25 It is to be noted that international preliminary examination can be carried out only
on those inventions in respect of which the International Searching Authority has established
the international search report. This follows from the requirement in Article 33(6) that the
International Preliminary Examining Authority has to take into consideration the documents
cited in the international search report (see, however, paragraph 10.73). Claims relating to
inventions in respect of which no international search report has been established need not
be the subject of international preliminary examination.
Further Stage of International Preliminary Examination
Article 34(2)(d); Rule 66.4(a), (b)
19.26 When the applicant has responded to a written opinion, the examiner may, if
necessary and if sufficient time remains for the applicant to respond and for the international
preliminary examination report to be established (see paragraphs 19.10 and 19.11), issue
one or more additional written opinions. Likewise, if the applicant so requests, the examiner
may give him one or more additional opportunities to submit amendments or arguments.
19.27 The additional written opinion from the examiner should invite the applicant to
submit a written reply together with, where appropriate, amendments. After receipt of this
opinion, the applicant may respond by amending the claims, description and drawings or, if
he disagrees with the opinion, submit arguments, as the case may be, or do both. The
conditions for amendments set out in paragraphs 20.04 to 20.22 apply.
19.28 The examiner should apply the same standard of international preliminary
examination in relation to matters of substance at all stages in the processing of the
international application. However, after the International Searching Authority has
established a first written opinion, he will not normally need to completely re-read the
amended application if he has drafted his first written opinion in a comprehensive way (see
paragraph 17.55) but he should concentrate on the amendments themselves and any related
passages, and on the deficiencies indicated in his first written opinion.
Rules 66.2, 66.4
19.29 The examiner should be guided by the overriding principle that an international
preliminary examination report should be established after as few written opinions as
possible, and he should control the procedure with this always in mind. The PCT provides
that the process of communicating with the applicant described in paragraph 19.30 may be
repeated if the International Preliminary Examining Authority so wishes. Nevertheless, if it is
clear that the applicant is not making any real effort to deal with the examiner’s objections,
either by amendments or by counter-arguments, then at the conclusion of the first, or
second, written opinion stage the examiner should establish the international preliminary
examination report (see paragraph 19.47). If the examiner has discovered any relevant
documents in a top-up search and intends to raise new objections based on them, he should
issue a second written opinion to notify the applicant accordingly. If the examiner determines
that the issuance of an additional written opinion would facilitate the final resolution of
significant issues, the examiner should consider the issuance of such written opinion. The
examiner may consider issuing an additional written opinion, if there are still objections that
are required to be met, provided that there is sufficient time available for the establishment of
the international preliminary examination report within the time limit set in the treaty, that the
applicant is making a real effort to meet the examiner’s objection and that the International
Preliminary Examining Authority has adequate resources (see paragraphs 19.26 and 20.05).
The examiner may also consider whether outstanding issues would best be resolved by a
further written opinion, a telephone discussion or an interview.
19.30 If the matters are such that the applicant is likely to require time to consider them,
the examiner may wish to issue an additional written opinion. If, however, there seems to be
confusion about points in dispute, for example, if the applicant seems to have misunderstood

Page 188
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the examiner’s reasons, or if the applicant’s own argument is not clear, then it may expedite
matters if the examiner proposes an interview. On the other hand, if the matters to be
resolved are minor, or can quickly and easily be explained and dealt with, then they might be
settled more expeditiously by telephone discussion. Discussion with the applicant by
interview or telephone is more fully considered in paragraphs 19.41 to 19.46.
19.31 Where a response to a written opinion is received in the form of arguments only,
the written opinion is reconsidered in the light of those arguments. Where the response
includes some amendments, other than rectification of obvious mistakes (Rule 66.5), the
amended description, drawings, and/or claims are considered as in paragraphs 20.04 to
20.22. In such a case the international preliminary examination report should indicate that
the applicant’s arguments have been taken in account in establishing the international
preliminary examination report. In addition, the examiner should comment on any relevant
arguments made by the applicant.
Rule 66.4bis
19.32 Where the time limit set for response to a further written opinion expires without a
response being received, the file is forwarded to the examiner who prepared the opinion,
who proceeds to establish the international preliminary examination report as in Chapter 17.
19.33 Where a response is received after the expiration of the time limit and the report
has not yet been established, then the response can be considered. But note Rule 66.4bis
(amendments, arguments or rectification of obvious mistakes need not be taken into
account). See also paragraph 20.05.
Correction of International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 66.4, 66.6
19.34 The International Preliminary Examining Authority may establish a corrected
international preliminary examination report in exceptional circumstances after a report has
been issued, provided the circumstances justify such an action. Any replacement report
resulting from the re-opening of international preliminary examination should be clearly
labeled as such so that elected Offices are aware of its status. A corrected international
preliminary examination report will not be established merely because the applicant
disagrees with the international preliminary examination report established by the
International Preliminary Examining Authority. The retraction of an international preliminary
examination report should only be done under exceptional circumstances. The type of
circumstance which justifies the re-opening of preliminary examination is where the report
was issued earlier than it otherwise would have, by reason of an error or omission on the part
of the International Preliminary Examining Authority. For example, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority establishes the international preliminary examination report
without consideration of a timely filed amendment. Note that once examination of a
particular application has been re-opened, any subsequent request to re-open examination
of that application should not be entertained.
19.35 The International Bureau must be advised to disregard the earlier report. If the
resulting response is a further written opinion, then this opinion will be sent to the applicant
only. However when the resulting response is another international preliminary examination
report, this will be sent to both the applicant and the International Bureau as a “corrected
version” of the international preliminary examination report.
Matters Applicable Generally to Various Stages of International Preliminary
Examination
Making Amendments: General Considerations
19.36 See chapter 20 for the factors which should be taken into account when
considering amendments.

Page 189
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Rectification of Obvious Mistakes

Rules 66.5, 91.1(b)
19.37 Mistakes which are due to the fact that something other than that which was
obviously intended was written in the contents of the international application (other than the
request) or other paper submitted to the International Preliminary Examining Authority (for
example, linguistic errors, spelling errors) may be rectified if a request for rectification is
submitted within 26 months from the priority date. If a correction is not of this character (for
example, if it involves cancellation of claims, omission of passages in the description or
omission of certain drawings), it would not be authorized by the Authority (see
paragraph 20.09 and Chapter 8).
Rule 91.1(d)
19.38 Subject to authorization (see paragraph 19.30), rectification of obvious mistakes in
the international application can be made at the request of the applicant on his own volition.
In addition, the examiner, upon study of the international application (other than the request)
and any other papers submitted by the applicant, might also note obvious mistakes. (See
Chapter 8). Although Rule 91 allows the International Preliminary Examining Authority to
invite the applicant to submit a request for rectifications, it is not foreseen that such
invitations will be issued since any error which can be rectified under Rule 91 will not be an
impediment to establishing the international preliminary examination report.
Rule 91.1(e), (f), (g)(ii), 91.2; Section 607
19.39 Rectification of an obvious error cannot be made before the International
Preliminary Examining Authority without the express authorization of that Authority. The
Authority is permitted to authorize rectification of such mistakes in a part of the international
application other than the request or in any papers submitted to it. The Authority may only
authorize rectification of obvious mistakes if a request for rectification is submitted within
26 months from the priority date. See paragraph 8.14 to 8.17.
Rules 66.1(d-bis), 66.4bis
19.40 A rectification of an obvious mistake that is authorized under Rule 91.1 shall be
taken into account by the International Preliminary Examining Authority for the purposes of
the international preliminary examination. However, it need not be so taken into account for
purposes of the written opinion or the international preliminary examination report if it is
received by, authorized by, or notified to that Authority after it has begun to draw up that
opinion or report.
Informal Communication with the Applicant
Rule 66.6
19.41 The International Preliminary Examining Authority may, at any time, communicate
informally, over the telephone, in writing, or through personal interviews, with the applicant.
The circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the examiner to communicate with the
applicant by telephone or propose an interview rather than send an additional written opinion
are considered in paragraphs 19.29 and 19.30. Communication will, in most instances, be
with the applicant’s agent (the meaning of “agent” in the PCT is set out in Rule 2.2) rather
than the applicant himself. If the applicant, or his agent, requests an interview, the examiner,
at his discretion, should grant more than one interview if he believes that a useful purpose
would be served by such a discussion.
19.42 When an interview is arranged, whether by telephone or in writing, and whether by
the examiner or by the applicant, the matters for discussion should be stated. If the
arrangement is made by telephone, the examiner should record the particulars and briefly
indicate, on the file, the matters to be discussed.
Rule 66.6
19.43 The interview is an informal procedure and the recording of the interview depends
upon the nature of the matters under discussion. Where the interview is concerned with the
clarification of obscurities, the resolution of uncertainties, or putting the international

Page 190
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

application in order by clearing up a number of minor points, it will usually be sufficient if the
examiner makes a note on the file of the matters discussed and the conclusions reached, or
amendments agreed upon. If, however, the interview is concerned with reviewing more
substantial matters, such as questions of novelty, inventive step, or whether the amendment
introduces new subject matter, then a fuller note of the matters discussed may be made in
the file (optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/428, Note on Informal Communication with the
Applicant) for use in an additional written opinion (if any) or the international preliminary
examination report and a copy of that note may, if appropriate, be sent to the applicant
(optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/429).
Rule 66.3, 66.4, 66.4bis, 66.6
19.44 If a new objection as to substance is raised at an interview and no amendment to
meet it is agreed upon at the time, the objection may be confirmed in an additional written
opinion inviting the applicant, within the prescribed time limit, to respond, if he so wishes.
The examiner should, however, keep in mind the time limit for the establishment of the
international preliminary examination report (see paragraphs 19.10 and 19.11).
19.45 When the telephone is used to settle outstanding matters, the normal procedure
should be for the examiner to telephone the applicant or the agent identifying the
international application he wishes to discuss and requesting the applicant or agent to
telephone back at a specific time. A note should be made on the file, giving particulars and
identifying the matters discussed and any agreements reached.
19.46 The records of interviews or telephone conversations should always indicate
whether a response is due from the applicant or agent or whether the examiner wishes to
issue an additional written opinion or establish the international preliminary examination
report.
Establishment of the International Preliminary Examination Report
General
Article 35(1), (2); Rule 66.4bis
19.47 An international preliminary examination report should be issued within the
prescribed time limit (see paragraph 19.10); in exceptional circumstances it may not be
possible to meet this deadline (see paragraph 19.11), in which case the report is established
as soon as possible thereafter. Except in the case of an international application in respect
of which an affirmative opinion can be given initially to the three criteria referred to in
Article 34(2)(c), this will follow one or more written opinions and possibly other
communications with the applicant. In most cases this will follow the issuance of the written
opinion by the International Searching Authority. If the examiner considers that the
possibility exists of amending or correcting the international application to bring it into a form
which meets the requirements of Article 33 (see paragraph 19.02), then the examiner should
communicate to the applicant in his first written opinion, indicating that the International
Preliminary Examining Authority is of the opinion that suitable amendments must be
submitted within a stated period (see paragraph 17.57). All amendments, arguments and
requests for rectification of obvious mistakes submitted before the examiner has begun to
draw up the report must be taken into account. Amendments arguments and requests for
rectification of obvious mistakes received later need not be considered for the purposes of
the report.
19.48 The international preliminary examination report giving the results of the
international preliminary examination is prepared by the examiner by the completion of the
prescribed Form (Form PCT/IPEA/409, entitled “International Preliminary Report on
Patentability (Chapter II of the Patent Cooperation Treaty)”). The examiner should keep in
mind, when establishing the international preliminary examination report, that it is not to
contain any statement on the question whether the claimed invention is or seems to be
patentable or unpatentable according to any national law. Chapter 17 gives detailed
guidance on the completion of the prescribed Form.

Page 191
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Determination of Time Limits

Article 35(1), 47(1)
19.49 When it is a matter for the Authority to determine applicable time limits referred to
in the PCT, the examiner must consult all the factors relevant to the particular international
application under consideration as well as the Regulations under the PCT which govern such
time limits. The most important time limits for international preliminary examination so far as
International Preliminary Examining Authorities are concerned, have been considered in
more detail in the various chapters and paragraphs as follows:
(i) translations of priority document: see Chapter 6 and Chapter 18;
(ii) amendments: see Chapter 20 and paragraph 17.57;
(iii) rectifications of obvious mistakes: see paragraph 19.39 and Chapter 8;
(iv) response by the applicant to first written opinion: see Chapter 17;
(v) restricting claims or payment of additional fees: see Chapter 10;
(vi) furnishing priority documents: see Chapter 6;
(vii) establishment of the international preliminary examination report: see
paragraphs 19.10 and 19.11.
Rule 80
19.50 Any time limit fixed by the International Preliminary Examining Authority will usually
be specified in full months, which should be calculated from the day following the date of
mailing of a particular communication inviting a response by the applicant. Rules 80.1
to 80.4 provide precise details for the determination of the day of expiration of the prescribed
time limit. Rule 80.5 contains provisions covering certain contingencies, for example, that
the Office of the International Preliminary Examining Authority is not open on the day on
which the time limit to respond by the applicant expires (or there is an official holiday in the
locality of any branch of the Office, or in a part of the Contracting State for which the Office is
the government authority, such that the national law of the Office provides that such periods
for national applications expire on a subsequent working day). Rule 82 covers the situation
where there is a general disruption in the postal service. Rule 82quater provides for an
excuse of delays in meeting time limits because of force majeure reasons.
Failure of Applicant to Respond Within a Prescribed Time Limit
Rule 66.4bis
19.51 If the applicant has not responded within a prescribed time limit, the effect of such
lack of response differs as the circumstances of the case may require under the PCT and its
Regulations. For instance, the international preliminary examination report may be
established as if priority had not been claimed (see paragraph 17.29); the international
preliminary examination report may be established on the “main invention” (see
paragraph 17.62); the international preliminary examination report may be established with a
negative determination (see paragraph 19.20 and Chapter 17). Normally, amendments,
arguments and requests for rectification of obvious mistakes need not be taken into account
by the examiner for the purposes of a written opinion or the international preliminary
examination report if they are received after he has begun to draw up that opinion or report
(see paragraph 20.05).
Withdrawal of the Demand or All Elections
Rules 90bis.4, 90bis.6
19.52 In the particular case where the applicant, by a signed notice sent to the
International Bureau, withdraws the demand or all elections, the International Preliminary
Examining Authority is notified of the withdrawal by the International Bureau, and the
processing of the international application by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority is discontinued. A notice of withdrawal must be signed by all the applicants of

Page 192
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

record in the international application or the agent, provided a power of attorney signed by all
the applicants has been filed. The requirement for an agent to have a power of attorney
cannot be waived for the purpose of withdrawal. If the notice of withdrawal is submitted by
the applicant to the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority marks the date of receipt on the notice and transmits it
promptly to the International Bureau. The notice is considered to have been submitted to the
International Bureau on the date marked

Page 193
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Chapter 20
Amendments

Amendment Prior to the Start of International Preliminary Examination

Amendment of the Claims Under Article 19
Rules 46.1, 69.1(d)
20.01 The documents making up the international application referred to in paragraph
18.10 may include amendments of the claims filed by the applicant under Article 19, which
must not go beyond the disclosure in the international application as filed (see
paragraph 21.10). These will be transmitted to the International Preliminary Examining
Authority by the International Bureau. If a demand for international preliminary examination
has already been submitted, the applicant should preferably, at the time he files the
Article 19 amendments with the International Bureau, also file a copy of the amendments and
the letter required under Rule 46.5(b) with the International Preliminary Examining Authority
(Rule 62.2). In the event that the time limit for filing amendments under Article 19, as
provided in Rule 46.1, has not expired and the demand includes a statement that the start of
the international preliminary examination is to be postponed under Rule 53.9(b), the
international preliminary examination should not start before:
(a) the examiner receives a copy of any amendments made under Article 19, or
(b) a notice from the applicant that he does not wish to make amendments under
Article 19, or
(c) the later of two months from the transmittal of the international search by the
International Searching Authority report or 16 months from the priority date, whichever
occurs first (See paragraphs 3.14 and 18.06 ).
Article 19 amendments are considered by the examiner only during the international
preliminary examination procedure.
Amendment Under Article 34
Rule 66.1(a)
20.02 Amendments to the description, claims or drawings are made under Rule 66.8.
These amendments may have been submitted to avoid possible objections of lack of novelty
and/or lack of inventive step in view of the citations listed in the international search report, or
other objections that may have been raised.
Articles 5, 6, 34(2)(b); Rule 66.1
20.03 The applicant is not restricted to amendments necessary to remedy a defect in his
international application. However, any amendment submitted must not add subject matter
which goes beyond the disclosure of the international application as originally filed (see
paragraphs 20.10 to 20.19). Furthermore, it must not itself cause the international
application as amended to be objectionable under the PCT. For example, the amendment
should not introduce obscurity.
Making Amendments: General Considerations
20.04 Any change, other than the rectification of obvious mistakes, in the claims, the
description, or the drawings, including cancellation of claims, omission of passages in the
description, or omission of certain drawings is considered an amendment. Any amendment
to the international application must be submitted in the language in which the international
preliminary examination is carried out.
Rule 66.1,66.4bis, 66.8(a)
20.05 The examiner need not take into account for the purposes of a written opinion or
the international preliminary examination report any amendments, arguments or requests for
rectification of obvious mistakes he receives after he has begun to draw up that opinion or
report. The applicant may file an amendment to the description, the claims and the drawings

Page 194
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

in the prescribed manner, even if this is outside the time period set for reply in Rule 66.2(d).
Since the examiner may begin to draw up the final report once the time period set for reply in
Rule 66.2(d) expires, amendments filed after the expiration of the time period set in for reply
in Rule 66.2(d) may or may not be considered. There may be situations where it is
advisable, to the extent possible, to take such amendments or arguments into account, for
example, where the international preliminary examination report has not yet been completed
and it is readily apparent to the examiner that consideration of the late-filed response would
result in the issuance of a favorable report.
Rule 66.1(a), 66.8(a), (c)
20.06 Amendments to the description and the drawings must be made by filing
replacement sheets when, on account of the amendments, the replacement sheet differs
from the sheets previously filed. Amendments to the claims must be filed as a complete set
to replace all the claims originally filed or previously amended under Articles 19 or 34, as the
case may be. When amendments to the description, claims or drawings are made under
Rule 66.8, the replacement sheets must be accompanied by a letter, which shall draw
attention to the differences between the replaced sheets and the replacement sheets, shall
indicate the basis for the amendments in the application as filed and should preferably also
explain the reasons for the amendments.
Rule 66.8(b)
20.07 In the particular case where the amendments cancel passages in the description
or certain drawings resulting in the cancellation of an entire sheet, the amendment must be
submitted in the form of a letter canceling the sheet. That letter should preferably also
explain the reasons for the amendments.
Rules 11.12, 11.14, 66.8(b)
20.08 It should be noted that, when a replacement sheet or set of claims is required
under paragraph 20.06, the applicant must submit such sheet in typed form. However,
replacement sheets or sets of claims containing handwritten amendments may be allowed as
well at the discretion of the examiner. In cases where the correction or amendment made by
the applicant is minor, (for example, not more than six words), the International Preliminary
Examining Authority may accept a copy of the relevant sheet or set of claims on which the
correction or amendment is interlineated in typescript, if such interlineation is free from
erasures, alterations and overwritings, and so long as the authenticity of this sheet is not in
question and the requirements for clarity and good reproduction are met. The International
Preliminary Examining Authority should invite the applicant to resubmit his amendments in
proper form whenever compliance with these principles is lacking.
Appraisal of Amendments
Articles 5, 6, 19(2), 34(2)(b); Rule 66
20.09 The examiner makes sure that amendments filed do not add to the content of the
application as filed, thus violating Article 19(2) or 34(2)(b). Furthermore, they must not itself
cause the international application as amended to be objectionable under the PCT; for
example, the amendment should not introduce obscurity. The examiner should consider as
acceptable restriction of the scope of the claims or amendments that improve the clarity of
the description or amendments to the claims in a manner clearly desirable, without changing
their subject matter content or scope. An amended international application must, of course,
satisfy all the requirements of the PCT including the matters listed in this chapter. However,
especially when the claims have been substantially limited, the examiner should bear in mind
that the following questions may require special consideration at the amendment stage:
(i) Unity of invention: Do the amended claims satisfy the requirement of
Rule 13? When considering this matter, paragraphs of Chapter 10 are applicable;
(ii) Agreement of description and claims: If the claims have been amended, will
the description require corresponding amendment to remove serious inconsistency between

Page 195
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

them? For example, is every embodiment of the invention described still within the scope of
one or more claims? (See Chapter 5).
(iii) Conversely, are all of the amended claims supported by the description? (See
paragraphs 5.43 and 5.44). Also, if the categories of claims have been altered, the examiner
may draw this to the attention of the applicant if it means that the title is no longer
appropriate.
Additional Subject Matter
Rules 70.2(c), 70.16(b); Section 602(a)(iv)
20.10 There is normally no objection to an applicant’s introducing, by amendment, further
information regarding prior art which is relevant, nor should the straightforward clarification of
an obscurity, or the resolution of an inconsistency, be objected to. When, however, the
applicant seeks to amend the description (other than references to the prior art), the
drawings, or the claims in such a way that subject matter which extends beyond the content
of the application as filed is thereby introduced, the international preliminary examination
report must be established as if such amendment had not been made. The examiner
indicates in the international preliminary examination report each sheet that contains subject
matter which goes beyond the disclosure of the application as filed. In such cases the
replacement sheets containing such amendments will be attached to the international
preliminary examination report along with the accompanying letter as required under
Rule 70.16(a) since they represent amendments which have been made, even though they
are not considered for the purposes of the international preliminary examination report. If a
first replacement sheet was acceptable but a second replacement sheet for the same
numbered sheet contains subject matter that goes beyond the original disclosure of the
application as filed, the second replacement sheet supersedes the first replacement sheet.
In this situation, both the first and second replacement sheets are attached to the
international preliminary examination report along with the accompanying letters as required
under Rule 70.16(a) to ensure that elected Offices receive the version of the international
application which is the basis of the international preliminary examination report and also the
later amendments which were not considered for that purpose. In this case the superseded
replacement sheet is marked “SUPERSEDED REPLACEMENT SHEET (RULE 70.16(b))”.
20.11 Where amendments have been filed under Articles 19(1) and/or 34(2)(b), the
question may arise whether a particular amendment proposed by the applicant goes beyond
the disclosure of the international application as filed. In order to make this determination in
situations where the amendment is filed in a different language than the language of the
application as filed, the examiner should normally assume, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that the original translation of the international application into the language of
publication or, where a translation is required under Rule 55.2, into the language of that
translation, is in conformity with the text of the original language of filing.
Articles 19(2), 34(2)(b); Rule 70.2(c)
20.12 An amendment should be regarded as introducing subject matter which extends
beyond the content of the application as filed, and therefore unacceptable, if the overall
change in the content of the application (whether by way of addition, alteration or excision)
results in the skilled person being presented with information, which was not expressly or
inherently presented in the application as filed even when taking into account matter which is
implicit to a person skilled in the art in what has been expressly mentioned. The term
“inherently” requires that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the
disclosure, and that it would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency may not
be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
20.13 The subject matter newly presented may be introduced by explicitly mentioning
matter, which was either not previously mentioned at all, or only implied. For example, if in
an international application relating to a rubber composition comprising several ingredients

Page 196
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

the applicant seeks to introduce the information that a further ingredient might be added,
then this amendment should normally be regarded as going beyond the disclosure in the
application as originally filed. Likewise, if in an application which describes and claims
apparatus “mounted on resilient supports,” without disclosing any particular kind of resilient
support the applicant seeks to add specific information that the supports are, or could be, for
example, helical springs (see, however, paragraph 20.14), then the amendment should
normally be regarded as going beyond the disclosure in the application as originally filed.
20.14 If, however, the applicant can show convincingly that the subject matter in question
would, in the context of the claimed invention, be so well known to the person skilled in the
art that its introduction could be regarded as an obvious clarification and, therefore, as not
extending the content of the application, it is permissible. For example, if in the
above-mentioned case of the resilient supports the applicant were able to demonstrate that
drawings, as interpreted by the person skilled in the art, showed helical springs, or that the
person skilled in the art would naturally use helical springs for the mounting in question, then
specific reference to helical springs should be regarded as permissible.
20.15 Where a technical feature was clearly disclosed in the original application but its
effect was not mentioned or not mentioned fully, yet it can be deduced without difficulty by a
person skilled in the art from the application as filed, subsequent clarification of that effect in
the description might not contravene Article 34(2)(b).
20.16 Amendment by the introduction of further examples, for example, in the chemical
field, should always be looked at very carefully, since prima facie any further example to
illustrate a claimed invention may extend the disclosure of the international application as
originally filed.
20.17 However, later-filed examples or statements of advantage, even if not allowed into
the application, may nevertheless be taken into account by the examiner as evidence in
support of the allowability of the claims in the application. For instance, an additional
example may be accepted as evidence that the invention can be readily applied, on the basis
of the information given in the originally filed application, over the whole field claimed (see
paragraphs 5.52 and 5.53); or an additional statement of advantage may be accepted as
evidence in support of inventive step (see paragraph 13.15). When such evidence is used
by the examiner to support a positive conclusion on inventive step, a mention of this
evidence should be made in the international preliminary examination report.
20.18 Care must also be taken to ensure that any amendment to, or subsequent
insertion of, a statement of the technical problem solved by the invention meets
Article 34(2)(b). For example, it may happen that, following restriction of the claims to meet
an objection of lack of inventive step, it is desired to revise the stated problem to emphasize
an effect attainable by the thus restricted invention but not by the prior art. It must be
remembered that such revision is only permissible if the effect emphasized is one deducible
by a person skilled in the art without difficulty from the application as filed (see
paragraphs 20.15 and 20.16).
20.19 As indicated in paragraph 20.12, alteration or excision of the text, as well as the
addition of further text, may introduce new subject matter. For instance, suppose a claimed
invention related to a multi-layer laminated panel and the description included several
examples of different layered arrangements, one of these having an outer layer of
polyethylene, amendment either to alter the outer layer to polypropylene or to omit this layer
altogether would not normally be regarded as permissible. In each case, the panel disclosed
by the amended example would be quite different from that originally disclosed and hence
the amendment would be considered as introducing new subject matter.
Lack of Support
20.20 Where subject matter is disclosed in a claim of the application as filed, but is not
mentioned anywhere in the description, it is permissible to amend the description so that it

Page 197
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

includes this subject matter as disclosed in that claim. However, consideration would still
need to be given as to whether the description as amended provides the required support for
the claims. If there is a contradiction or inconsistency between the claims and description,
this will have to be resolved by amendment of either the claims or description. In some
occasional circumstances, there may be a question of whether the claims provide sufficient
disclosure to allow amendment of the description without adding matter that goes beyond the
disclosure as filed or to provide full support. An amendment to include a negative limitation
to overcome prior art may raise a lack of support issue.
20.21 An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by
the description of the invention as originally filed, and each claim limitation must be explicitly
or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. Where such an amendment
introduces a negative limitation, exclusion, or disclaimer, the amendment should be
examined to determine whether it may raise a new matter issue. See the appendix to this
chapter for examples. See paragraphs 20.10 et seq. for a discussion of what constitutes
matter that goes beyond the description as originally filed.
Amendments to Translated Applications
Rules 55, 60.1(a) to (e)
20.22 If the examiner determines that an erroneous translation has been published or
furnished under Rule 55.2 or 55.3, or that an amendment is not in the language on the basis
of which the international preliminary examination is being conducted (see paragraphs 18.07
to 18.09), he may invite the applicant, at any time during the proceedings before the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, to provide a translation of the amendment or
to correct any such translation so as to bring it in line with the language of the text as filed
and/or as published, as the case may be. If the applicant fails to supply a translation of the
amendment within the time limit set in the invitation, the amendment is not taken into account
for the purposes of the international preliminary examination.

Appendix to Chapter 20

New Matter
A20.21 The International Preliminary Examining Authorities have divergent practices
with regard to when a negative limitation, disclaimer, or exclusion will raise a new matter
issue. Either of the alternative guidelines below may be relied upon by an International
Authority as appropriate.
A20.21[1] A negative limitation that is added in a new claim or by amendment will raise a
new matter issue if the subject matter being excluded does not have support in the
application as filed. For example, if the disclosure describes a genus of compounds, but
does not provide support for any particular species within that genus, a negative limitation
excluding a particular species would raise the issue of new matter.
A20.21[2] A negative limitation or disclaimer with no basis in the application as filed is
permissible where the limitation or disclaimer is added to overcome accidental anticipation by
a reference or to exclude parts of a claim for reasons other than novelty, such as for lack of
industrial applicability or insufficient disclosure.

Page 198
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART VII
QUALITY

Chapter 21
Common Quality Framework for International
Search and Preliminary Examination

Introduction

21.01 International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authorities are entrusted to

apply and observe all the common rules of international search and examination. Although
applicants can generally expect the Authorities to act in accordance with these Guidelines,
some variability is inherent, due to the involvement of several Authorities in the international
search and examination process and to the multitude of personnel within the various
Authorities, in the international search and examination process. At the same time, it is
recognized that minimizing inconsistencies between and within the Authorities is crucial to
the unqualified acceptance of an Authority’s work product by other Offices.
21.02 This chapter sets out the main features of a quality framework for international
search and preliminary examination. It describes a minimum set of criteria that each
Authority should use as a model for establishing its individual quality scheme.
Rule 36.1(iv) and 63.1(v)
21.03 Each Authority should establish and maintain a quality management system
(QMS) which complies with the following requirements with regard to:
1. Leadership and policy
2. Resources
3. Management of administrative workload
4. Quality assurance
5. Communication
6. Documentation
7. Search process documentation
Additional Provisions:
8. Internal review
9. Reporting arrangements
1. Leadership and Policy
21.04 Top management of each Authority is responsible for the development and
implementation of a Quality Management System (QMS). Top management should establish
a quality policy for the Authority and it should delegate responsibilities for the QMS and
document these in an organizational chart.
21.05 Management should ensure compatibility of its QMS with the requirements of
these International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines.
21.06 Management should ensure the effectiveness of the QMS and that the process of
continual improvement progresses.

Page 199
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

21.07 Management of the Authority should communicate to its staff the importance of
meeting treaty and regulatory requirements including those of this framework and of
complying with the Authority’s QMS.
21.08 Top management of the Authority or delegated officers should conduct
management reviews and ensure the availability of appropriate resources. It should regularly
review quality objectives and ensure that they are communicated and understood throughout
the respective Authority.
21.09 Top management or delegated officers of the Authority will review its QMS at
regular intervals. The minimum scope and frequency of such reviews are set out in
Section 8, below.
2. Resources
21.10 Each Authority should be able to accommodate changes in workload and should
have an appropriate infrastructure to support the search and examination process and
comply with the QMS requirements and these Guidelines. To those ends, the Authority
should have:
–Sufficient Human Resources:
(i) a quantity of staff sufficient to deal with the inflow of work and which maintains
the technical qualifications to search and examine in the required technical fields and the
language facilities to understand at least those languages in which the minimum
documentation referred to in Rule 34 is written or is translated;
(ii) appropriately trained/skilled administrative staff at a level to support the
technically qualified staff and facilitate the search and examination process, and for the
documentation of records;
–Sufficient Material Resources:
(iii) appropriate equipment and facilities, such as IT hardware and software, to
support the search and examination process;
(iv) possession of, or access to, at least the minimum documentation referred to in
Rule 34, properly arranged for search and examination purposes, on paper, in microform or
stored on electronic media;
(v) comprehensive and up-to-date instructions to help staff understand and
adhere to the quality criteria and standards and follow work procedures accurately and
consistently;
–Sufficient Training Resources:
(vi) an effective training and development program for all staff involved in the
search and examination process to ensure they acquire and maintain the necessary
experience and skills and are fully aware of the importance of complying with the quality
criteria and standards; and
–Sufficient Training Resources:
(vii) a system for continuously monitoring and identifying the resources required to
deal with demand and comply with the quality standards for search and examination.
3. Management of Administrative Workload
21.11 Each Authority should have in place the following minimum practices and
procedures for handling search and examination requests and performing related functions
such as data-entry and classification:
(i) effective control mechanisms regarding timely issue of search and
examination reports to a quality standard as set by the Authority; and

Page 200
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(ii) appropriate control mechanisms regarding fluctuations in demand and backlog

management.
4. Quality Assurance
21.12 Each Authority should have procedures regarding timely issue of search and
examination reports of a quality standard in accordance with these Guidelines. Such
procedures should include:
(i) an effective internal quality assurance system for self-assessment, involving
verification and validation and monitoring of searches and examination work for compliance
with these Search and Examination Guidelines and channeling feedback to staff;
(ii) an effective system of measurement and collection of data and reporting, and
commitment to using it to ensure the continuous improvement of the established processes:
and
(iii) a system for verifying the effectiveness of actions taken to address
deficiencies and to prevent issues from recurring.
Such procedures may also include the use of checklists, either to verify the quality standard
of search and examination reports in accordance with these Guidelines before those reports
are issued and/or to monitor that quality standard as part of a post-issue review process.
5. Communication
Inter-Authority Communication
21.13 To help identify and disseminate best practice among Authorities and foster
continual improvement, each Authority should provide for effective communication with other
Authorities to allow for prompt feedback from them so that potential systemic issues can be
evaluated and addressed.
21.14 Each Authority should nominate and make known to other Authorities the name of
a quality contact person.
Communication and guidance to users:
21.15 Each Authority should have in place a system for monitoring and using customer
feedback including at least the following elements:
(i) an appropriate system for handling complaints and making corrections, and
taking corrective and/or preventative action where appropriate and offering feedback to
users.
(ii) a procedure for monitoring user satisfaction and perception and for ensuring
their legitimate needs and expectations are met.
(iii) clear, concise and comprehensive guidance and information to users
(particularly unrepresented applicants) on the search and examination process which could
be included on each Authority’s web site as well as in guidance literature.
(iv) the Authority should make its goals in terms of quality publicly available for the
users.
Communication with WIPO and designated and elected Offices
21.16 To help improve performance and foster continual improvement, each Authority
should provide for effective communication with the International Bureau and designated and
elected Offices to allow for prompt feedback from them so that potential systemic issues can
be evaluated and addressed.

Page 201
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

6. Documentation
21.17 The QMS of each Authority needs to be clearly described and implemented so that
all processes in the Authority and the resulting products and services can be monitored,
controlled, and checked for conformity.
21.18 Therefore the Authority should provide a reference for its staff and management in
the form of a Quality Manual, which documents all the procedures and processes affecting
the quality of work, such as classification, search, examination and related administrative
work. In the manual it is to be indicated where instructions on the procedures to be followed
may be found.
21.19 The following list indicates the items which are considered to be the type of content
of a Quality Manual:
(i) the quality policy of the Authority including a clear statement of commitment to
the QMS from top management;
(ii) the scope of the QMS, including details of and justification for any exclusions;
(iii) the organizational structure of the Authority and the responsibilities of each of
its departments;
(iv) the documented processes carried out in the Authority such as receipt of
incoming applications, classification, distribution, search, examination, publication and
support processes, and procedures established for the QMS, or references to them;
(v) the resources available for carrying out the processes and implementing the
procedures; and
(vi) a description of the interaction between the processes and the procedures of
the QMS.
21.20 The following list indicates the types of records that each Authority should
maintain:
(i) a definition of which documents are kept and where they are kept
(ii) results of management review;
(iii) training, skills and experience of personnel;
(iv) evidence of conformity of processes, resulting products and services in terms
of quality standards;
(v) results of reviews of requirements relating to products;
(vi) the search and examination processes carried out on each application;
(vii) data allowing individual work to be tracked and traced;
(viii) records of QMS audits;
(ix) actions taken re. non-conforming product, e.g. examples of corrections;
(x) actions taken re. corrective action;
(xi) actions taken re. preventative action; and
(xii) search process documentation as set out in Section 7.
7. Search process documentation
21.21 For internal purposes each Authority should document its search process which
may include inter alia:
(i) the databases consulted (patent and non-patent literature);
(ii) the keywords, combinations of words and truncations used;

Page 202
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

(iii) the language(s) in which the search was carried out;

(iv) the classes and class combinations searched, at least according to the IPC or
equivalent; and
(v) a listing of all search statements used in the databases consulted.
(vi) each Authority should further document at least for internal purposes special
cases such as:
(vii) limitation of search and its justification;
(viii) lack of clarity of the claims; and
(ix) lack of unity.
8. Internal Review
21.22 In addition to establishing a quality assurance system for checking and ensuring
compliance with the requirements set out in its QMS, each Authority should establish its own
internal review arrangements to determine the extent to which it has established a QMS
based on the above model and the extent to which it is complying with the QMS
requirements and these Guidelines. The reviews should be objective and transparent so as
to demonstrate whether or not those requirements and guidelines are being applied
consistently and effectively and should be undertaken at least once a year.
21.23 It is open to each Authority to set up its own arrangements but the following is
proposed as a guide to the basic components of an internal review mechanism and reporting
system.
21.24 The input to each review should include information on:
(i) conformity with the QMS requirements and these Guidelines;
(ii) any corrective and preventative action taken to eliminate the cause of
non-compliance;
(iii) any follow-up action from previous reviews;
(iv) the effectiveness of the QMS itself and its processes;
(v) feedback from customers, including designated and elected Offices as well as
applicants; and
(vi) recommendations for improvement.
21.25 Suitable arrangements should be established for monitoring, recording and
measuring compliance with the QMS requirements and these Guidelines.
9. Arrangements for authorities to report to MIA
21.26 There are two stages in the reporting arrangements.
(a) Initial reports: Each Authority shall submit an initial report to the Meeting of
International Authorities under the PCT (MIA) describing what it has done to implement a
QMS based on the broad requirements set out in the present document. This would help
identify and disseminate best practice among Authorities. MIA should then submit a general
initial report on progress to the PCT Assembly.
(b) Annual reports: Following the initial reporting in stage 1, annual reports shall
be prepared by each Authority, identifying the lessons learned and actions taken and making
recommendations in light of the review.
21.27 The reports submitted by Authorities shall be made available by the International
Bureau on WIPO’s website.

Page 203
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

10. Future developments

21.28 Proposals for future changes to the framework set out in this chapter should be
made available by the International Bureau for comment by interested parties prior to
adoption.

Page 204
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

PART VIII
CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Chapter 22
Clerical and Administrative Procedures

Receipt of the Demand

Article 31(6)(a)
22.01 The International Preliminary Examining Authority receives the demand for
international preliminary examination normally directly from the applicant. Alternatively the
International Preliminary Examining Authority may receive the demand from the International
Bureau, a Receiving Office, an International Searching Authority or a non-competent
International Preliminary Examining Authority under Rule 59.3.
Determination of Competent International Preliminary Examining Authority and
Marking of the Demand
Articles 31(6)(a), 32; Rule 59.3
22.02 Where the demand is filed with an International Preliminary Examining Authority, it
checks the demand to establish whether or not it is a competent Authority to receive the
demand according to the agreement established between the Authority and the International
Bureau. If the determination is positive, the International Preliminary Examining Authority
proceeds with the review of the demand as set forth in paragraphs 22.06 et seq. If the
determination is negative, the non-competent International Preliminary Examining Authority
indelibly marks the date of actual receipt of the demand in the space provided on the last
sheet of the demand and transmits the demand, together with any accompanying documents
or items, to the International Bureau for further handling and notifies the applicant of that fact.
Form PCT/IPEA/436 is used for this purpose. Where the demand is filed with a receiving
Office or an International Searching Authority, the Office or Authority follows the same
procedure (but using Form PCT/RO/153 or PCT/ISA/234). Where the demand Form or a
computer print-out used by the applicant does not comply with Section 102(h) or (i) of the
Administrative Instructions, the procedure for correcting defects under paragraphs 22.24 et
seq. applies.
Rule 59.3(a), (c), (f)
22.03 The non-competent International Preliminary Examining Authority may, instead,
choose to transmit the demand directly to the competent International Preliminary Examining
Authority. In such a case, if only one International Preliminary Examining Authority is
competent, it transmits the demand to that Authority and notifies the applicant accordingly,
using Form PCT/IPEA/436. If two or more International Preliminary Examining Authorities
are competent, it must first invite the applicant to indicate, within the time limit applicable
under Rule 54bis.1(a), that is, 3 months from the date of transmittal of the international
search report or the declaration referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and the written opinion under
Rule 43bis.1(a), or 22 months from the priority date, or 15 days from the date of the
invitation, whichever is later, to which one of those Authorities the demand should be
transmitted (using Form PCT/IPEA/442). If the applicant responds to the invitation, the
non-competent International Preliminary Examining Authority promptly transmits the demand
to the competent Authority specified by the applicant and notifies the applicant accordingly.
If the applicant does not respond, or responds after the expiration of the time limit, the
non-competent International Preliminary Examining Authority declares that the demand is
considered as if it had not been submitted and notifies the applicant accordingly, using
Form PCT/IPEA/444. If the demand is filed with the receiving Office, International Searching
Authority or International Bureau, that body follows the same procedure specified above for
the non-competent International Preliminary Examining Authority, except that the forms used
are Forms PCT/RO/153, PCT/ISA/234 and PCT/IB/368, respectively.

Page 205
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

22.04 In all the situations outlined in paragraphs 22.02 and 22.03, the non-competent
International Preliminary Examining Authority, receiving Office, International Searching
Authority or International Bureau refunds to the applicant any fees paid to it.
Rule 59.3(e)
22.05 If the International Preliminary Examining Authority receives the demand
transmitted to it, under Rule 59.3, by a receiving Office, an International Searching Authority,
the International Bureau or another International Preliminary Examining Authority which is
not competent for the international preliminary examination of the international application,
the competent International Preliminary Examining Authority considers that the demand was
received on its behalf by the Office, Bureau or Authority transmitting on the date marked as
the “actual date of receipt” on the last sheet of the demand.
Identification of the International Application
Rules 53.6, 60.1(b)
22.06 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks whether the international
application to which the demand relates can be identified, for example, by checking the name
and address of the applicant, title of the invention, international filing date and international
application number. If the determination is negative, the International Preliminary Examining
Authority promptly invites the applicant to submit corrections using Form PCT/IPEA/404. If
the corrections are submitted within the time limit fixed in the invitation, the demand is
considered as if it had been received on the date on which the International Preliminary
Examining Authority receives the corrections and the Authority indicates the date of receipt of
the corrections on the first sheet of the demand and in the box for the adjusted date of
receipt on the last sheet (see also paragraph 22.12). If the corrections are not submitted
within this time limit, the demand is considered not to have been submitted and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority so declares (Form PCT/IPEA/407).
Applicant’s Entitlement to File a Demand
Article 31(2); Rule 54
22.07 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks whether the applicant is
entitled to file the demand. An applicant is entitled to file a demand if he is a resident or
national of a Contracting State bound by Chapter II of the Treaty and if the international
application was filed with a receiving Office of, or acting for, a Contracting State bound by
Chapter II of the Treaty. Currently (as of January 1, 2004) all Contracting States are bound
by Chapter II.
Article 31(2); Rule 54.2, 54.4; Section 614
22.08 If there are two or more applicants, it is sufficient if at least one of the applicants
making the demand is a national or resident of a Contracting State bound by Chapter II of the
Treaty, irrespective of the elected States for which that applicant is indicated (see also
paragraph 22.34). If none of the applicants has the right to make a demand under Rule 54.2,
the demand is considered by the International Preliminary Examining Authority as not having
been submitted (Form PCT/IPEA/407). In addition, if there is little time remaining prior to the
expiration of 19 months from the priority date, the applicant should be informed as quickly as
possible so that the applicant can timely enter the national phase in any designated State
where a notification in respect of the modification to Article 22(1), adopted by the PCT
Assembly with effect from April 1, 2002, is still in force.
22.09 The international application must have been filed with the receiving Office of a
Contracting State bound by Chapter II, or acting for such a State. Where the receiving Office
acts for two or more Contracting States, at least one of the applicants who filed the demand
must be a resident or national of a Contracting State bound by Chapter II for which the
receiving Office acts.

Page 206
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Change in the Applicant

22.10 Where the applicant named on the demand is not the same as the applicant
indicated on the request, the International Preliminary Examining Authority must check that
the new applicant is entitled to make that demand.
Election of States
Article 37; Rule 53.7
22.11 The filing of a demand constitutes the election of all Contracting States which are
designated and are bound by Chapter II of the Treaty.
Check of Particulars Affecting the Date of Receipt
Rules 53.1(a), 60.1(a), 61.1(a); Section 102(h), (i)
22.12 Where, after checking of particulars affecting the date of receipt, as described in
paragraph 22.06, a positive determination is made, the actual filing date is marked as date of
receipt in the space provided on the first sheet of the demand. Where the demand Form or a
computer print-out in compliance with Section 102(h) or (i) of the Administrative Instructions
was not used by the applicant, the procedure for correcting defects described in
paragraphs 22.24 et seq. applies.
22.13 The International Preliminary Examining Authority notifies the applicant of the
receipt of the demand (Form PCT/IPEA/402).
Checking Whether Demand Is Timely Filed
Rule 54bis
22.14 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks to see that the demand
is filed within three months from the date of transmittal of the international search report or
the declaration referred to in Article 17(2)(a), and the written opinion established under
Rule 43bis.1, or 22 months from the priority date, whichever expires later. If the demand is
filed later, the International Preliminary Examining Authority considers the demand as having
not been submitted and issues a declaration to that effect by sending a copy of
Form PCT/IPEA/407 to the applicant and the International Bureau. If the demand is timely
filed, the International Preliminary Examining Authority notifies the applicant accordingly
(Form PCT/IPEA/402).
Article 39(1)(a); Section 601
22.15 In the event that the national law of any designated State continues to be
incompatible with the modification of the time limit for national phase entry under
Article 22(1), adopted by the PCT Assembly with effect from April 1, 2002, and such State is
designated, the International Preliminary Examining Authority promptly checks whether the
demand is received within 19 months from the priority date. When the demand is received
after 19 months from the priority date, the International Preliminary Examining Authority
marks the appropriate check box on the last page of the demand and notifies the applicant
and the International Bureau accordingly (Form PCT/IPEA/402) as quickly as possible so
that the applicant can timely enter the national phase in any designated State where the
notification in respect of the modification to Article 22(1) is still in force. Irrespective of
whether the demand was received within 19 months from the priority date, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority promptly notifies the applicant of the date of actual receipt.
Establishing the International Preliminary Examining Authority File
22.16 The International Preliminary Examining Authority, promptly upon receipt of the
demand, establishes the file.
Section 605
22.17 Where the International Preliminary Examining Authority is part of the same
national Office or intergovernmental organization as the International Searching Authority,
the same file serves the purposes of international search and international preliminary
examination.

Page 207
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

22.18 Where the International Preliminary Examining Authority is not part of the same
national Office or intergovernmental organization as the International Searching Authority or
receiving Office in which the application was filed, the International Bureau will provide a
copy of the international application or, where already published, a copy of the published
international application, together with a copy of the international search report, when
available, to the International Preliminary Examining Authority upon request. This is
necessary in order for that Authority to process the demand and conduct international
preliminary examination. If the international search report is not yet available, the
International Bureau will send a copy of it promptly upon receipt thereof. The documents
cited in the international search report can be collected from the International Preliminary
Examining Authority’s own search files or ordered from the International Searching Authority.
Upon receipt of the demand or a copy thereof, the International Bureau will promptly transmit
to that Authority, a copy of the written opinion established by the International Searching
Authority.
22.19 A copy of any amendments under Article 19 and of any accompanying statement
will be supplied by the International Bureau to the International Preliminary Examining
Authority unless a copy has been submitted with the demand by the applicant or the
applicant has reversed them (see paragraphs 18.04 and 18.06).
Transmittal of the Demand to the International Bureau
Rules 61.1, 90bis.4(a)
22.20 The International Preliminary Examining Authority either transmits the original
demand and keeps a copy in its files or sends a copy to the International Bureau and keeps
the demand in its files. The demand or the copy thereof must be transmitted to the
International Bureau, even where it has been withdrawn by the applicant, where it has been
considered to have been withdrawn, and where the applicant did not respond to the invitation
(Form PCT/IPEA/442) to indicate the competent Authority to which the demand was to be
transmitted. Where a demand has been transmitted to the competent International
Preliminary Examining Authority under Rule 59.3, it is the Authority which is competent to
receive the demand which proceeds under this paragraph (see paragraphs 22.02 to 22.05).
22.21 The transmittal must be effected promptly after receipt of the demand, generally
not later than one month after receipt.
Rule 90.4, 90.5; Section 608
22.22 The International Preliminary Examining Authority normally sends to the
International Bureau, together with the original demand, or copy thereof, any original
separate power of attorney or any copy of a general power of attorney received. However, if
the International Preliminary Examining Authority has waived the requirement for a power of
attorney under Rule 90.4(d), but a separate power of attorney or copy of the general power
of attorney is nevertheless submitted, it is not necessary to send a copy of that power of
attorney to the International Bureau.
Article 34
22.23 The International Preliminary Examining Authority does not transmit with the
demand to the International Bureau any amendments to the application under Article 34 or
copies of amendments under Article 19.
Certain Defects in the Demand
Article 31(3); Rules 53, 55, 60
22.24 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks the demand for the
following defects (Form PCT/IPEA/404):
Rule 53.1(a)
(i) the demand is not made on the prescribed Form;

Page 208
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Article 31(3); Rules 53.2(b), 53.8, 60.1(a-ter)

(ii) the demand is not signed as provided in the Regulations (see
paragraphs 22.28 to 22.32);
Article 31(3); Rules 4.4, 4.5, 4.16, 53.2(a)(ii), 53.4, 60.1(a-bis)
(iii) the demand does not contain the prescribed indications concerning the
applicant (see paragraph 22.33);
Article 31(3); Rule 53.2(a)(iii), 53.6
(iv) the demand does not contain the prescribed indications concerning the
international application (see paragraph 22.06);
Rules 4.4, 4.7, 4.16, 53.2(a)(ii), 53.5
(v) the demand does not contain the prescribed indications concerning the agent
(see paragraph 22.35);
Rule 53.2(a)(i), 53.3
(vi) the demand does not contain a petition to the effect that the applicant requests
that the international application be the subject of international preliminary examination under
the PCT; Rule 53.3 indicates preferred words, but these are not essential. The petition is
part of the printed demand Form (Form PCT/IPEA/401) and must also be contained in a
demand presented as a computer printout;
Rule 55.1
(vii) the demand is not in the language of publication of the international
application or in the language accepted by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
22.25 For corrections of certain defects in the demand, ex officio or upon invitation, see
paragraphs 22.26 (ex officio corrections), 22.35 (indications concerning the agent) and 22.37
(invitation to correct defects).
22.26 Many kinds of errors in the demand can be corrected by the International
Preliminary Examining Authority ex officio, which means that the applicant need not and is
not formally invited to make the correction himself. Where a correction is made ex officio, the
International Preliminary Examining Authority makes the correction and enters in the margin
the letters “IPEA.” Where any matter is to be deleted, the International Preliminary
Examining Authority encloses such matter within square brackets and draws a line between
the square brackets, while still leaving the deleted matter legible. The International
Preliminary Examining Authority informs the applicant of the correction made by sending him
either a copy of the corrected sheet of the demand or by a separate notification (there is no
special Form, but Form PCT/IPEA/424, which is for use where no other Form is applicable,
could be used). Errors which may be corrected ex officio include, in particular, indications
concerning the applicant and the agent designated in the demand. If the error is corrected
by the International Preliminary Examining Authority after the original demand has been
transmitted to the International Bureau, the International Preliminary Examining Authority
notifies the International Bureau by sending it a copy of the corrected sheet of the demand.
Language
Rules 23.1(b), 55.2, 62bis.1
22.27 Where neither the language in which the international application is filed nor the
language in which the international application is published is accepted by the International
Preliminary Examining Authority, the applicant must furnish with the demand a translation of
the international application into a language in which the international preliminary
examination may be carried out, that is, a language which is both a language accepted by
that Authority and a language of publication. This translation must include any element
referred to in Article 11(1)(iii)(d) or (e) furnished by the applicant under Rule 20.3(b) or
20.6(a) and any part of the description, claims or drawings furnished by the applicant under
Rule 20.5(b) or 20.6(a) which is considered to have been contained in the international
application under Rule 20.6(b). Where a translation into such a language has already been

Page 209
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

furnished to the International Searching Authority under Rule 23.1(b) and the International
Preliminary Examining Authority is part of the same national Office or intergovernmental
organization as the International Searching Authority, the international preliminary
examination is carried out on the basis of that translation, unless the applicant furnishes a
translation to the International Preliminary Examining Authority as outlined above. Upon
request of the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the written opinion established
by the International Searching Authority, when not in English or a language accepted by the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, will be translated into English by or under the
responsibility of the International Bureau. The International Bureau will forward a copy of the
translation of the written opinion within two months from the date of request.
Signature
Rules 53.2(b), 60.1(a-ter)
22.28 Except as set forth in paragraph 22.30, the applicant must either sign the demand
or submit a separate power of attorney or a copy of a signed general power of attorney,
appointing an agent for the filing of the demand. If there are two or more applicants, it is
sufficient that the demand be signed by one of them.
Rule 90.3, 90.4(d)
22.29 Where the agent signs the demand and a power of attorney has been filed earlier
with the receiving Office, the International Searching Authority or the International Bureau or
where the agent has been appointed in the request, no power of attorney need be submitted
by the applicant to the International Preliminary Examining Authority. Where the agent signs
the demand and the demand is filed with an International Preliminary Examining Authority
which has not waived the requirement that a separate power of attorney be submitted to it,
that International Preliminary Examining Authority confirms that the agent has been
appointed to act before the International Preliminary Examining Authority if no power of
attorney accompanies the demand or has already been filed with the receiving Office, the
International Searching Authority, or the International Bureau. Where the International
Preliminary Examining Authority is not the same Office as the receiving Office or the
International Searching Authority, the International Preliminary Examining Authority may,
until it is notified of or has reason to believe the contrary, assume that an agent who is
indicated in the publication of the international application and in the PCT Gazette has been
duly appointed by the applicant.
Rule 90.4(d)
22.30 The International Preliminary Examining Authority may waive the requirement that
a separate power of attorney or a copy of the general power of attorney be submitted to it.
This waiver cannot cover the submission of a notice of withdrawal by an agent or common
representative. Where an International Preliminary Examining Authority has waived the
requirement for a separate power of attorney, the agent named in a demand may sign the
demand even though no separate power of attorney has been filed with the receiving Office,
the International Searching Authority, the International Preliminary Examining Authority or the
International Bureau nor has the agent been appointed in the request.
Rule 90.1(c), (d), 90.3(b), 90.4
22.31 The appointment of an additional or sub-agent for the procedure before the
International Preliminary Examining Authority can be made in the demand or through a
separate or general power of attorney. If the appointment is made in the demand which is
signed by the applicant, no separate power of attorney need be submitted. If the demand is
signed by an earlier appointed agent, no separate power of attorney from the applicant need
be filed if the earlier appointed agent has the right to appoint sub-agents. If the demand is
signed by the additional or sub-agent, a separate power of attorney need not be filed if the
demand is filed with an International Preliminary Examining Authority which has waived the
requirement for a separate power of attorney. Authorization to appoint may be assumed
unless the power of attorney excludes appointing sub-agents. If a demand is signed by the
additional agent, a separate power of attorney signed by the applicant, or his earlier

Page 210
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

appointed agent who has the right to appoint sub-agents, must be filed where the
International Preliminary Examining Authority has not waived the requirements that a
separate power of attorney be submitted. If a separate power of attorney accompanies the
demand or is later filed, the International Preliminary Examining Authority promptly transmits
the original or a copy to the International Bureau. For the manner of inviting the correction of
a missing signature, see paragraph 22.37.
Rule 90.2(a), (b), 90.3(c)
22.32 A common representative is entitled to sign the demand with effect for all
applicants. The agent of the common representative may also sign with effect for all
applicants.
Indications Concerning the Applicant
Rules 4.4, 4.5, 4.16, 53.2(a)(ii), 53.4, 60.1(a-bis); Sections 115, 614
22.33 The demand must contain the prescribed indications concerning the applicant.
The address must contain an indication of the country; the indication of the country by a
letter code as part of the postal code is sufficient (for example, CH-1211 Geneva).
Nationality and residence must be indicated by the name or the two-letter country codes of
the State of nationality and State of residence; in case of a dependent territory (which is not
a State), the name of the State on which the territory depends must be given as the
indication of the residence. For the manner of indicating names of States, see Section 115
of the Administrative Instructions. If there are two or more applicants, it is sufficient that the
address, nationality and residence are provided in respect of one of them who has the right
to make a demand.
Section 614
22.34 For the decision whether the applicant has the right to make a demand it is
decisive that the applicant had the right at the time the demand was filed. Where the
demand does not contain the corresponding indications, or where the applicant made
mistakes by giving indications which are not the indications required to support the right to
file the demand, the omission or wrong indication may be corrected by the applicant if the
International Preliminary Examining Authority is satisfied that the applicant had the right to
file a demand at the time the demand was received. In such a case, the demand is
considered as having met the requirements under Article 31(2)(a) as of the date when the
demand with the mistakes in the indications was filed.
Indications Concerning the Agent
Rules 4.4, 4.7, 4.16, 53.5, 90.1
22.35 If an agent is named or appointed, the International Preliminary Examining
Authority checks whether the indications correspond to those contained in the file. If the
International Preliminary Examining Authority does not have information about the
appointment, it checks whether the agent has been indicated in the publication of the
international application, or in the PCT Gazette, or checks with the International Bureau. In
case of an appointment or naming of a new agent or an additional agent in the demand, the
International Preliminary Examining Authority also checks whether the indications as to such
an agent comply with Rules 4.4 and 4.16; Rule 4.7 applies mutatis mutandis. The
International Preliminary Examining Authority may waive the requirement for a power of
attorney.
Rule 90.1(c), (d)
22.36 The International Preliminary Examining Authority may request the receiving
Office, if necessary, to confirm that the agent has the right to practice before that Office
(optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/410) if the agent does not have the right to practice before
the International Preliminary Examining Authority.

Page 211
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Invitation to Correct Defects in the Demand

Rules 53, 55, 60.1(a), (a-ter), (b)
22.37 If the International Preliminary Examining Authority finds one or more defects
referred to in Rule 60.1(a), it invites the applicant to correct the defects within one month
from the date of the invitation (Form PCT/IPEA/404). The International Preliminary
Examining Authority notifies the International Bureau by sending it a copy of the invitation.
Where the defect consists of the lack of the signature of at least one applicant (see
paragraph 22.28), the International Preliminary Examining Authority may include with the
invitation to correct, a copy of the last sheet of the demand which the applicant returns after
affixing thereto the prescribed signature. Where the defect consists of the lack of the
signature on the demand and the demand is filed with an International Preliminary Examining
Authority which has waived the requirement for a separate power of attorney, the
International Preliminary Examining Authority may include with the invitation to correct, a
copy of the last sheet of the demand which the agent returns after signing.
Rule 60.1(c)
22.38 Upon receipt of a letter containing a correction or accompanying a replacement
sheet of the demand the International Preliminary Examining Authority marks on that letter
and any accompanying sheets the date on which they were received. It verifies the identity
of the contents of any replacement sheet of the demand with that of the replaced sheet (see
paragraphs 22.40 and 22.41 for the consequences of this check. The International
Preliminary Examining Authority marks in the upper right-hand corner of the replacement
sheet, the international application number and the date on which the replacement sheet was
received and, in the middle of the bottom margin, the words “SUBSTITUTE SHEET (RULE
60.1).” It keeps in its files a copy of any letter and any replacement sheet. It transmits any
replacement sheet of the demand and a copy of any letter to the International Bureau. The
International Preliminary Examining Authority undertakes the actions referred to in this
paragraph not only where the corrections submitted by the applicant are timely received and
satisfactory, but also where they are not and, consequently, the demand is considered as if it
had not been submitted.
22.39 If the International Preliminary Examining Authority receives a replacement sheet
of a sheet of the demand embodying a correction of a defect referred to in Rule 60.1(a),
which was submitted by the applicant of his own volition without having been invited to
correct a defect, the International Preliminary Examining Authority proceeds as outlined in
the preceding paragraph.
Rule 60.1(a), (b)
22.40 The International Preliminary Examining Authority checks whether the defects
referred to in Rule 60.1(a) have or have not been timely corrected. If the applicant complies
with the invitation within the time limit, the demand is considered as if it had been received on
the actual filing date provided that the demand as submitted permitted the international
application to be identified. The time limit for correction may be extended. If a correction of
a defect is received after the expiration of the time limit for correction but before a decision is
taken, the time limit for correction should be extended ex officio so that the said correction is
considered as having been timely received.
Rule 60.1(b), (c)
22.41 If the International Preliminary Examining Authority finds that any of the defects
referred to in Rule 60.1(a), have not been corrected or have not been timely corrected (see
the preceding paragraph), it declares that the demand is considered as if it had not been
submitted and notifies the applicant and the International Bureau (Form PCT/IPEA/407). If
the date of receipt of the demand is changed, the International Preliminary Examining
Authority notifies the applicant and the International Bureau (Form PCT/IPEA/402).

Page 212
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Payment and Refund of Fees

Rule 57, 58
22.42 The International Preliminary Examining Authority calculates the amounts of the
prescribed preliminary examination fee and handling fee. It also determines whether the
fees have been paid and it notifies the applicant of any underpayment or overpayment
(optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/403).
Rules 57.2(a), 58.1(b)
22.43 The amount of the handling fee, which is collected for the benefit of the
International Bureau, is as set out in the Schedule of Fees. The amount of the preliminary
examination fee, if any, is fixed by the International Preliminary Examining Authority.
Rules 57.3, 58.1(b)
22.44 The handling fee and the preliminary examination fee are payable within one
month from the date on which the demand was submitted or 22 months from the priority
date, whichever time limit expires later. Where the demand was transmitted to the
International Preliminary Examining Authority under Rule 59.3, these fees are payable within
one month from the date of actual receipt of the demand by that Authority or 22 months from
the priority date, whichever time limit expires later. Where the International Preliminary
Examining Authority decides to start the international preliminary examination at the same
time as the international search, that Authority will invite the applicant to pay the handling fee
and the preliminary examination fee within one month from the date of the invitation. The
amount payable is the amount applicable on that date of payment. If, before the date on
which those fees are due, the International Preliminary Examining Authority finds that no fees
have been paid to it or that the amount paid to it is insufficient to cover them, it may invite the
applicant to pay to it any missing amount (optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/403).
Rule 58bis.1(a), (c), 58bis.2
22.45 Where, by the time the handling and preliminary examination fees are due, the
International Preliminary Examining Authority finds that no fees were paid to it, or that the
amount paid to it is insufficient to cover them, it invites the applicant to pay to it any missing
amount, together with, where applicable, a late payment fee, as provided under Rule 58bis.2,
within a time limit of one month from the date of the invitation (using Form PCT/IPEA/440). A
copy of that invitation is sent to the International Bureau. However, if any payment is
received by the International Preliminary Examining Authority before such invitation has been
sent, that payment is considered to have been received before the expiration of the time limit
referred to in paragraph 22.44.
Rule 58bis.2
22.46 If a late payment fee is charged, its amount is 50% of the amount of unpaid fees
which is specified in the invitation, or, if the amount so calculated is less than the handling
fee, an amount equal to the handling fee may be charged. The amount of the late payment
fee must in no case exceed double the amount of the handling fee.
Rule 58bis.1(b), (d)
22.47 Where the International Preliminary Examining Authority has sent an invitation
under Rule 58bis.1(a) and the applicant has not, within the time limit of one month from the
date of the invitation, paid in full the amount due, including, where applicable, the late
payment fee, the International Preliminary Examining Authority declares that the demand is
considered as if it had not been submitted, using Form PCT/IPEA/407. If the amount due is
received before the demand is declared not to have been submitted, payment is considered
to have been received before the expiration of the time limit referred to above and the
International Preliminary Examining Authority does not declare that the demand is
considered as if it had not been submitted.
Rules 54.4, 57.4
22.48 The International Preliminary Examining Authority refunds the handling fee to the
applicant if the demand is either withdrawn before it has been sent to the International

Page 213
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

Bureau or considered not to have been submitted because none of the applicants has the
right to make a demand.
Transfer of Handling Fees to the International Bureau
Rule 57
22.49 The International Preliminary Examining Authority should, each month, transfer the
handling fees collected during the preceding month to the International Bureau. When
making the transfer, the International Preliminary Examining Authority indicates the exact
amounts transferred, broken down according to the international application numbers of the
international applications concerned, as well as the names of the applicants.
Use of Facsimile Machine, Telegraph, Teleprinter, Etc.
Rule 92.4(d), (e)
22.50 Where the furnishing of the original of a document is required as confirmation by
the International Searching Authority, the Authority specified for supplementary search, or
the International Preliminary Examining Authority of the document that was transmitted by
facsimile, telegraph, teleprinter or other like means of communication, but the original of a
document signed by the applicant or his agent is not received, within 14 days, an invitation is
sent to the applicant inviting him to comply with the requirement within a time limit which
must be reasonable (optionally using Form PCT/ISA/230 or Form PCT/IPEA/434, as the
case may be). The original document does not need to be submitted as confirmation unless
the original is required by the Authority.
Rule 92.1(b), 92.4(g)(ii)
22.51 If the applicant does not comply with the invitation within the time limit, the
International Searching Authority, the Authority specified for supplementary search, or the
International Preliminary Examining Authority notifies the applicant that the document is
considered not to have been submitted (optionally using Form PCT/ISA/232 or
Form PCT/IPEA/438, as the case may be).
Irregularities in the Mail Service
Rule 82
22.52 For the applicable procedure in case of delay or loss in the mail or in case of
interruption in the mail service, reference is made to Rule 82. Rule 82 applies also if a
delivery service is used to the extent that the International Searching Authority, the Authority
specified for supplementary search, or the International Preliminary Examining Authority
accepts evidence of the mailing of a document by a delivery service other than the postal
authorities.
Excuse of Delay in Meeting Time Limits
Rule 82quater
22.52A Any delay in meeting a time limit is to be excused under Rule 82quater if the
International Searching Authority, the Authority specified for supplementary search, or the
International Preliminary Examining Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the
following conditions are met:
(a) the time limit was not met due to war, revolution, civil disorder, strike, natural
calamity, general unavailability of electronic communication services or other like reason in
the locality where the interested party resides, has his place of business or is staying;
(b) the relevant action has been taken as soon as reasonably possible;
(c) the evidence provided by the interested party is in a form acceptable to the
Authority; and
(d) the evidence is received by the Authority not later than six months after the
expiration of the time limit applicable in the given case.

Page 214
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

In the particular case of general unavailability of electronic communications services, the

interested party must establish that the outage affected a widespread geographical area
rather than being a localized problem, that it was unexpected or unforeseen, and that there
was no alternative communication means available to him. Actions to be performed include
the submission of documents, responses to invitations and the payment of fees. Whether
the interested party has taken the relevant action “as soon as reasonably possible” is to be
judged by the Authority on the facts of the case. Commonly, this would mean within a short
period of the cause of the delay ceasing to apply. For example, in cases where a strike
prevented an agent from reaching his office, it would be expected that the action should in
most cases be taken either the next working day or shortly thereafter, depending on how
much preparatory work had been disrupted. On the other hand, where a disaster has
resulted in the complete destruction of an agent’s files, it would reasonably be expected to
take longer to reassemble all the necessary documents and systems to allow the necessary
action to be taken. Rule 82quater does not specifically refer to the action being taken “as
soon as reasonably possible after the removal of the cause of the delay”, because an
interested party should still be expected to take reasonable steps to overcome problems in
cases where it can be seen that the relevant emergency situation will continue for a
considerable period and the interested party is not himself prevented by the emergency from
taking remedial action. As to the form of evidence acceptable to the Authority, for example, a
news report from a reliable mass media outlet, or a statement or announcement from the
relevant national authority should normally be acceptable for this purpose. In the case of
general unavailability of electronic communications services, a statement from the provider of
Internet services or the company providing electricity to the interested party may also be
acceptable.
22.52B The Authority should promptly inform the interested party of its decision (using
Form PCT/ISA/224 or Form PCT/IPEA/424, as the case may be). A copy of the request, any
evidence furnished and the decision should be sent to the International Bureau.
Computation of Time Limits
Rule 80
22.53 For details regarding the computation of time limits and dates of documents,
reference is made to Rule 80.
Amendments Under Article 19
Article 19; Rule 53.9(a)(ii)
22.54 If the applicant indicates that any amendments under Article 19 are to be
disregarded, the International Preliminary Examining Authority treats any such amendments
as reversed and marks the relevant sheets of amendments accordingly.
Response to the Written Opinion
Section 602(a)
22.55 In response to an opinion, an applicant may file amendments with a cover letter.
On receipt of these amendments, the International Preliminary Examining Authority indicates
on the top right hand corner of the substitute sheets the application number and the date of
receipt. The International Preliminary Examining Authority marks the words “AMENDED
SHEET” or their equivalent in the middle of the bottom margin of each sheet.
Rule 92.1(a), 92.2(a)
22.56 It should also be noticed that any paper submitted by the applicant in the course of
international preliminary examination other than the international application itself, if not in
the form of a letter, must be accompanied by a letter signed by the applicant. The letter
should identify the international application to which it relates and be in the same language
as the said application or in one of the languages authorized to be used by the International
Preliminary Examining Authority. If these requirements are not complied with, the applicant
should be informed as to the non-compliance and invited to remedy the omission within a
time limit fixed in the invitation. The time limit should be reasonable in the circumstances,

Page 215
 PCT/GL/ISPE/6

but no less than 10 days and no more than one month from the mailing of the invitation. If
the omission is remedied within the time limit fixed in the invitation, the omission should be
disregarded, otherwise the paper should be disregarded.
Rules 55, 60.1(a) to (e)
22.57 If it is determined that an erroneous translation has been published or furnished
under Rule 55.2 or that an amendment is not in a language accepted by the International
Preliminary Examining Authority, the applicant may be invited, at any time during the
proceedings before the International Preliminary Examining Authority, to provide a translation
of the amendment or to correct any translation of the international application so as to bring it
in line with the language of the text as filed and/or as published, as the case may be. If the
applicant fails to supply a translation of the amendment within the time limit set in the
invitation, the amendment is not taken into account for the purposes of the international
preliminary examination.
Transmittal of the International Preliminary Examination Report
Rule 71.1
22.58 The International Preliminary Examining Authority must on the same day:
(i) transmit one copy of the international preliminary examination report
(Form PCT/IPEA/409) and its annexes, if any, to the International Bureau under the cover of
Form PCT/IPEA/415, and one copy of the report under cover of Form PCT/IPEA/416 to the
applicant;
(ii) place a copy of the notification, report and amendment/rectifications in the
examination file; and
(iii) where belated filing of Article 34 amendments means that such amendments
have not been taken into account by the International Preliminary Examining Authority, notify
the applicant of this fact, optionally using Form PCT/IPEA/432 (second check box action).
Withdrawal of the Demand or All Elections
Rule 90bis.4, 90bis.5
22.59 In the particular case where the applicant, by a signed notice sent to the
International Bureau, withdraws the demand or all elections, the International Preliminary
Examining Authority is notified of the withdrawal by the International Bureau, and the
processing of the international application by the International Preliminary Examining
Authority is discontinued. A notice of withdrawal must be signed by all the applicants of
record in the international application or the agent, provided a power of attorney signed by all
the applicants has been filed. The requirement for an agent to have a power of attorney
cannot be waived for the purpose of any withdrawal. If the notice of withdrawal is submitted
by the applicant to the International Preliminary Examining Authority, the International
Preliminary Examining Authority marks the date of receipt on the notice and transmits it
promptly to the International Bureau. The notice is considered to have been submitted to the
International Bureau on the date marked.

[End of document]

Page 216