|
E
/
D
/
F
Table of Contents
Foreword
Index
List of regulations
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
 |
| |
Announcement by the President
of the EPO relating to the
duration of time limits to be
fixed under Article 96(2)
|
| |
In Issue 6-7/1979 of the Official Journal at page 289, information was given about the time limits to be applied during an initial period for replies to communications from the Examining Division under Article 96(2). It was stated that the practice would be reviewed before the end of one year.
|
| |
In the light of experience, the practice will be changed after the first year of substantive examination, i.e. for all communications from the Examining Division issued on or after 1 June 1980. The new time limits to be applied from that date will be as follows:
|
| |
|
(1)
|
Two months (instead of three months) if deficiencies in the application are merely formal or merely of a minor character.
| |
| |
|
(2)
|
Four months (instead of six months) as a general rule in other communications from the Examining Division, i.e. communications raising objections of substance. In special circumstances, e.g. in exceptionally complicated cases, a longer period up to six months may nevertheless be given as provided for in Rule 84.
| |
| |
For communications to which the new shorter time limits are applied, an extension of up to two months will normally be granted on request. However, the request for an extension must be presented before the expiry of the period set and the reason for the request must be stated.
|
| |
A request for a longer extension or for a second extension will however only be granted in exceptional cases and only when sufficient and convincing reasons are given.
|
|
|
