Trilateral Project 24.1-Biotechnology 197

Since both inventions of claim 1 and 2 are related to a Virus C antigenic protein, the industrial fields of application are considered to be the same.

And, even if multiple groups of epitopes on a viral antigenic protein encoded by a single gene are claimed in one application, the requirement of the unity of invention would be satisfied because both inventions have the same problem to be solved that they provided multiple groups of epitopes on the said antigenic protein for the first time, as long as such epitopes was not known before the filing.

However, when a polypeptide fragment other than the claimed fragment which is useful as an epitope on the said viral antigenic protein is publicly known, it could not be said that the technical problem to be solved, which is unsolved before the filing, is identical, simply because both fragments A or B are useful as epitopes on the said viral antigenic protein. Furthermore, it could not be said that the substantial parts of the matters being to be stated in the claim are the same, since the amino acid sequence of fragment A is quite different from that of fragment B. Therefore, the requirement for the unity of invention would not be satisfied in such a case.