An objection of lack of unity of invention, if applicable, should already have been raised at the search stage. If such an objection was not raised, but the Examining Division nevertheless considers that the requirements of Article 82 are not met, the question of lack of unity will be addressed as early as possible during examination. If the applicant has paid further search fees in response to an invitation of the Search Division under Rule 46(1) and has requested a refund of these, the Examining Division will have to reconsider the matter (see also III, 7.9 - III, 7.11).

If the applicant has not responded to the above-mentioned invitation of the Search Division to pay a further search fee in respect of certain subject-matter, it must nevertheless be taken into account that the final responsibility for establishing whether the application meets the requirement of unity of invention ultimately rests with the Examining Division (T 631/97, OJ 1/2001, 13). The Examining Division will normally uphold the position taken in the search opinion (see III, 7.10 and B-XII, 1.2) and the examination will proceed only for the invention which has been the subject of the search and the applicant will have to limit the application to that subject-matter by excising those parts which relate to the non-searched subject-matter (see G 2/92, OJ 10/1993, 591). The applicant may, however, file a divisional application for that subject-matter.

If the applicant has responded to the above-mentioned invitation to pay further search fees, he will be invited at the beginning of the substantive examination to state, if he has not yet done so, on which invention the prosecution of the application should be based and to limit the application accordingly by excising those parts belonging to the other inventions. For the latter, the applicant may file divisional applications.