Regulation no. 263/2003: allows applicant to waive the part of the examination related to international prior art. This is applicable to any application in which substantive examination has not yet been made.
Equivalent patent in a country that has similar novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability requirements as Argentina. Although the equivalent patent could have been issued in any jurisdiction- patents granted by the EPO followed by the USPTO are preferred.
The scope of the claims must be identical or less than those of the equivalent patent. However, the claims may have to be amended to comply with the requirements of Argentinean law-one independent claim and use of a characterizing clause. In many cases, combining the claims to the equivalent patent will expedite prosecution and grant.
SECTION 40(3) OF THE Australian patent Act provided “ The claim or claims must be fairly based on the matter described in the specification”. The body of the specification has to be read as a whole places no limitation on the invention set out in the “ consistory clause(s)”. Clauses describing the invention generally) then the claims would be fairly based if they reflect the invention set out in the consistory clause. In other words, there must be “a real and reasonably clear disclosure” of the claimed invention in the specification. A specification need not disclose any more than a single embodiment and even with a single embodiment, the patentee would still be able to include claims that were not limited to the embodiment so long as there was “ fair basis” for the other claims. The description of a single embodiment common in the applications for mechanical devices. However for chemical cases, it is still considered necessary to include multiple examples or embodiments in order to support broad claims. The patentee is required to submit search results from corresponding applications.
AIPO grants patents for computerized accounting, electronic commerce systems and the like.