Since this question relates to international practice, I wasn't sure where to post this thread. (I hope the admin will create a new section for international questions, besides EP)
The question I have relates to "Unity of Invention."
The application has 5 claims, claim 1 being independent and claims 2-5 depend on claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to encoding an "audio signal"; some of the bits of the "encoded audio signal" are substituted with a "digital message" based on some criteria.
Claims 2-5 each recite what the digital message is - for example, an authentication code, text, etc.
The international examiner rejected claim 1 in view of a prior art reference.
The international examiner, however, refuses to examine claims 2-5 because he alleges that these claims lack "Unity of Invention" with respect to claim 1.
In my opinion, I believe that claims 2-5 do not lack "Unity of Invention."
These dependent claims further recite what the "digital message" is.
Moreover, these dependent claims are within a single inventive concept. (Am I right or wrong?)
Has anyone here been successful in traversing a "Unity of Invention" objection? If so, what language did you use to traverse the objection.
Any input would be great.
Thanks in advance.