The Subject Patent Already Has Underlining or ... - Bayhdolecentral

search report are to be indicated as pages/sheets as
amended under Article 19. Only those amendments,
or rectifications to the claims filed on the date of
Demand or after the filing of a Demand shonld be
listed as later filed pages/sheets. All claims present on
a sheet stamped AMENDED SHEET are listed as
amended irrespective of which of the claims present
on that sheet were actually amended. If a claim is
made up of sheets filed on different dates, the latest
date is the date that should be used for the claim.
ITEM II. PRIORITY
Item II of Form PCT/lPEAJ408 is to inform applicant
of non-establishment of a request for priority.
If applicant fails to furnish a copy or translation of
the earlier application, whose priority has been
claimed, within the time limit set by the examiner pursuant
to PCT Rule 66.7, check box No.1 and then
check the first box of the subsection if applicant failed
to furnish a copy of the earlier application whose priority
has been claimed, and check the second box in
the subsection if applicant failed to furnish a translation
of the earlier application whose priority has been
claimed.
When the claim for priority has been found invalid
(e.g., the claimed priority date is more than one year
prior to the international filing date and the notification
under PCT Rule 4.1O(d) has been provided or all
claims are directed to inventions which were not
described and enabled by the earlier application),
check box No.2 of Item II and indicate why the claim
for priority has been found invalid following No.3
"Additional observations". The examiner is rentinded
that when some claims in an international application
are directed to an invention which was disclosed in
the earlier application, the priority claim is valid provided
that a copy and/or translation of the earlier
application havelhas been filed and the filing date of
the earlier application is one year or less from the filing
date of the international application.
ITEM III. NON·ESTABLISHMENT OF OPIN·
ION ON NOVELTY,INVENTIVE STEP AND IN­
DUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY
Item III of Form PCTIIPEA/408 is intended to
cover situations where some or all claims of an application
are so unclear or inadequately supported by the
description that the question of novelty, inventive step
PATENT COOPERATION TREATY
1878
(nonobviousness), and industrial applicability cannot
be considered, or where the international application
or claims thereof relate to subject matter which does
not require international prelintinary examination, or
where no international search report has been established
for the claims.
If some or all of the claims of an application relate
to subject matter which does not require international
preliminary examination, check the appropriate box,
indicate which claims relate to that subject matter and
specify the reasons.
If some or all of the claims of an application are so
unclear that no meaningful opinion could be formed,
check the appropriate box, indicate which claims are
unclear and specify the reasons.
If some or all of the claims are so inadequately sup,
ported by the description that no meaningful opinion
could be formed, check the appropriate box.
If no international search report has been established
for certain claims, check the appropriate box
and indicate the claim numbers.
ITEM IV. LACK OF UNITY OF INVENTION
Item IV of Form PCTIIPEAJ408 should be used by
the examiner to notify applicant that lack of unity of
invention has been found.
If in reply to an invitation to restrict, applicant
restricted the claims to a particular group, check the
first box under subsection 1.
If applicant paid additional fees for examination of
additional invention, check the second box under subsection
1.
If the additional fees were paid under protest, cheek
the third box under subsection 1.
If applicant neither restricted nor paid additional
fees in reply to the objection of lack of unity of invention,
check the fourth box under subsection 1.
Subsection 2 of Item IV is to be completed if the
exantiner determines that unity of invention is lacking
but chooses not to invite the applicant to restrict or
pay additional fees.
Subsection 3 of Item IV is to be completed to indicate
which claims were the subject of international
prelintinary examination.
Ifall claims are to be exantined, check the first box
under subsection 3.
If only some of the claims were the subject of international
preliminary examination, check the second
1800-107 August 2001