The reasoning must contain, in logical sequence, those arguments which justify the order. It should be complete and independently comprehensible, i.e. generally without references. If, however, a question has already been raised in detail in a particular communication contained in the file, the reasoning of the decision may be summarised accordingly and reference may be made to the relevant communication for the details.

The conclusions drawn from the facts and evidence, e.g. publications, must be made clear. The parts of a publication which are important for the decision must be cited in such a way that those conclusions can be checked without difficulty. It is not sufficient, for example, merely to assert that the cited publications show that the subject of a claim is known or obvious, or, conversely, do not cast doubt on its patentability; instead, reference should be made to each particular passage in the publications to show why this is the case.

It is particularly important that special attention should be paid to important facts and arguments which may speak against the decision made. If not, the impression might be given that such points have been overlooked. Documents which cover the same facts or arguments may be treated in summary form, in order to avoid unnecessarily long reasonings.

The need for complete and detailed reasoning is especially great when dealing with contentious points which are important for the decision; on the other hand, no unnecessary details or additional reasons should be given which are intended to provide further proof of what has already been proven.

If during examination proceedings a main and subsidiary requests have been filed (see X, 3) and none of these is allowable, the reasons for the decision to refuse the application pursuant to Art. 97(1) must not be limited to the main request, but must also comprise the reasons for the non-allowability of each subsidiary request. If one of the requests is allowable, the communication pursuant to Rule 51(4) is to be issued on the basis of the (first) allowable request and must be accompanied by an explanation of the reasons why the higher-ranking requests are not allowable. Should the applicant, in response to the communication pursuant to Rule 51(4), maintain higher-ranking requests which are not allowable, a decision to refuse the application pursuant to Art. 97(1) will be issued; the reasons must set out the grounds for the non-allowability of each request which ranks higher than the allowable request. In respect of the allowable request, the decision to refuse must mention that the applicant has failed to give his approval to it. If the text of the requests maintained is not amended compared to that on file when the communication under Rule 51(4) was issued, then the requirement of Rule 51(5) for filing of translations and payment of fees does not apply. These matters are also dealt with in Legal Advice No. 15/05 (rev. 2), OJ 6/2005, 357.

Similarly, if in opposition proceedings the proprietor has submitted in addition to his main request one or more subsidiary requests, none of which is allowable, the patent must be revoked and the decision must set out, in respect of each request submitted and maintained by the proprietor, the reasons for not allowing it. Where one of the proprietor's requests directed to the maintenance of the patent in amended form is allowable, an interlocutory decision is to be issued on the basis of the (first) allowable request; it has to set out the reasons why this request meets the requirements of the EPC and, additionally, the reasons why the higher-ranking requests do not.

Insofar as a decision includes the rejection of any of the multiple requests, such decision may not be taken until the applicant or proprietor has been informed, with respect to each of these requests, of the reasons for not allowing them, so that the applicant or proprietor is not deprived of the opportunity to present comments (Art. 113(1) - right to be heard). Similarly, an opportunity to comment must be granted to the opponent(s) with respect to a subsidiary request before it is held allowable by an interlocutory decision (see D-VI, 7.2).

Practical considerations will determine at which point in the decision the subsidiary request is dealt with. The main emphasis should be laid on dealing with the independent claims, whereas the reasoning as regards dependent claims does not need to be so detailed, unless special importance is attached to them in any particular case.

If an Examining or Opposition Division has exercised its discretion under Rule 71a to refuse late-filed facts, evidence or requests, its decision must give the reasons for its refusal. A mere reference to the discretionary power given under Rule 71a is not sufficient. The same applies to the exercise of an Examining Division's discretion to refuse amendments under Rule 86(3) (see T 755/96, OJ 4/2000, 174).

There is no strict rule that a decision has to deal with all the points which are or may become contentious between the deciding authority and the parties concerned. For reasons of economy it is, however, appropriate to base a rejection on a number of separate reasons, in order to come as early as possible to a final decision in a case. Therefore an Examining or Opposition Division should deal with those questions which may be expected to become relevant at second instance insofar as this is possible without substantial additional effort, so that, in the event of a successful appeal, the matter does not have to be remitted to the deciding authority by the Board of Appeal.