1 Unless otherwise shown by the context, whenever the expression “patents” Is used In this document, “Inventors’ certificates should also be understood for the purposes of those countries (mainly the Soviet Union) where inventions may be protected through patents or through inventors’ certificates.

2 “National Office,” throughout this document, means the government authority of each Contracting State which Is entrusted with the Issuance of patents.

3 If an applicant obtains from a Searching Authority a search conforming to the criteria provided for In the PCT but carried out on his national application (“International-type search”), the said Searching Authority would have to consider, when it receives the International application, whether the search already effected could contribute, wholly or partly, towards the international search and whether, accordingly, some refund of the International search fee could be made.

4 Any designated State could, however, require that a copy of the application be given to Its Office even If the search report Is not yet completed, and that the national fees be paid and the translations be furnished to such Office before the regular communication of the application, but none of this could be required prior to the expiration of 20 months after the priority date. Since, in all typical cases, the International search will have been completed by that time, this possibility would rarely arise and merely serves the purpose of assuring designated Offices that they would not have to wait Indefinitely.

5 Any elected State could, however, require that a copy of the application be given to its national Office even if the preliminary examination report Is not yet completed, and that the national fees be paid and the translations be furnished to such Office before the communication of the preliminary examination report, but none of this could be required prior to the expiration of 25 months after the priority date. Since, in all typical cases, the International preliminary examination will have been completed by that time, this possibility would rarely arise and merely serves the purpose of assuring elected Offices that they would not have to wait Indefinitely.

6 The one month after International filing (the 13th month) should be enough for a security check since the national application whose priority Is Invoked In the International application has been known for a year to the Receiving Office. But, If the one-month period Is not sufficient, the Receiving Office may require that international applications be filed a few weeks earlier—as Is the case today when a security clearance must be obtained before the priority year expires.

7 If preliminary examination is demanded before the search is started, and if it is the same Authority which would perform the search and the preliminary examination, the two procedures could be “telescoped” in part. The first opinion could Issue at the same time as the search report, that Is, by the end of the 16th rather than the 20th month. The four months so gained could be used to allow for a second written opinion and a second reply in the preliminary examination phase.

8 All the fees referred to In paragraphs 40 to 42 would be Independent of the number of States designated by the applicant But the national Office of each designated State may, when the International application reaches it, require the payment of the usual national filing fee.

1 The Notes, appearing on each page with the text of the Draft Treaty, are Intended to serve two main purposes. One is to facilitate the reading of the text of the Draft Treaty by providing, where a provision refers to other provisions of the Treaty, brief information on those other provisions, so that the reader should be able to avoid, as far as possible, turning to the page on which the provisions referred to appear. The other is to enable the reader to find rapidly in the Regulations the Rules which pertain to any given provision of the Draft Treaty. To this end, the pertinent Rules are referred to by their number and In most cases also by their title. The Draft Regulations are contained in document PCT/III/6.

The Notes are not intended as a commentary.

1 Observation: Japan Is the only country In which this provision would seem to be needed.

2 Observation: Rule 13.3 might eventually be transferred to the Administrative Instructions.

3 The combination of these two criteria may be designated as “essential novelty.”

4 Observation: Date to be determined later In the light of the availability of Englishlanguage abstracts.

5 Observation: Date to be determined later In the light of general availability of copies in the search flies.

6 It appears that there is at least one country in which the domestic law requires that each Invention be the subject of one claim. In other words, any given invention cannot be the subject of several claims. This does not mean that the application must relate to one invention only. It may relate to several inventions, provided the requirement of unity of invention is complied with. But it does mean that the number of Inventions and the number of the claims in any given application must be the same. For example, In all those admittedly frequent cases where the application relates to one invention, the application may contain only one claim.

The difficulties which such a requirement could cause in connection with the proposed manner of claiming in the PCT draft are under study.

7 Observation: “Power of attorney” In English simply means an authorization given to a person for the purposes of representation. Such person Is not required to be an attorney at law. He may be a lawyer, a patent agent or any other person appointed by the applicant to represent him. The word “attorney,” in the expression “power of attorney,” means an agent (In the legal sense of the word). “Power of attorney” corresponds to “pouvoir” In French and to “Vollmacht” In German.