LZM Patent Office

10 Ava Road Ava Tower # 19-07 Singapore 329949 (http://www.ycec.com )

Tel: 65 63533647 Fax: 65 62585636 Email: lzmyc@singnet.com.sg

Patent Cooperation Treaty E-mail: publicinf@wipo.int

International Bureau of Wipo Tel: 41 22 338 9547

34 Chemin Des Colombettes Fax: 41 22 338 8810

1211 GENEVA 20 SWITZERLAND Jan. 13, 2004

Mr. Francis GURRY cc. Austrian Patent Office

Dear Sir,

I thank you for your response to my letter on October 31, 2003 on Jan. 08, 2004.

In this case it was concerning the complained that the search authority of Austrian Patent Office that there is mistake that has harmed the benefit of inventor and violated the PCT law. The search authority of Austrian Patent Office had power to refused search for medical method basis the Rule 39. 1 (IV), but they cannot to refuse search for a medicine of sterilizing liquid, therefore the search authority must give the search report to inventor immediately. The “encompasses” methods for treatment of blame was a pretext!

In those Claims of my application was accordance with PCT Article 6, "shall define the matter for which protection is sought" and "shall be clear and concise.", the Claims of medicine of sterilizing liquid was clear and concise in Claim 2 below:

【2. The formal name for the medicine of sterilizing liquid is Per Fluoro Chemicals (PFC) adding ozone forming a medicine.】

I had some letters explaning inform for Austrian Patent Office about it, I had further amendment of the Claims Before the International Bureau Basis Article 19 and 34. 2(b) on Dec.12, 2003. The amendment claims are divided into two different editions, the “Claim A” are used to only allow the medicine patent by patent-law of country, the “Claim B” are used for the inclusion of the medicine and methods of medical treatment allow the medicine patent by patent-law of country, for instance US patent office and so on. The search authority of Austrian Patent Office had no any excuse to refused search for my application already.

I had sent the above the amendment document by the registration mail on Dec.12, 2003, PCT officer must send me a filing receipt that is appropriate.

I had received PCT officer Miss Judith Zahra`s notice about the publication of international application send on Dec.04, 2003, but in the notice 2. below is a huge mistake.

【The following designated Offices have waived the requirement for such a communication at this time:

AE, AG, AL, AM, AP, AT, BA, BB, BG, BR, BZ, CA, CR, CU, CZ, DK, DM, EA, EC, EE, EP, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GM, HR, ID, IL, IN, IS, KE, KZ, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LV, MA, MG, MN, MW, MX, NI, NO, NZ, OA, OM, PH, PL, PT, RO, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, T J, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, UZ, VC, VN, YU, ZA, ZM, ZW

The communication will be made to those Offices only upon their request. Furthermore, those Offices do not require the applicant to furnish a copy of the imitational application (Rule 49.1 [a-bis]).】

I had spoken to her on Friday last week and a letter asking to correct mistake and send out the republished copy to the those countries stated above. This wrong behavior is serious!

Under the PCT 49.1 (a), I should receive a notification about the amount of the national fee and the languages from which and the language into which it requires translation by the International Bureau of. How to inter the national phase and by which to paying official filing fees was our argument before, if you insisted your viewpoint, the most simple practice is replied my letter to Ms Anjali & Eva Schumm on Nov. 17, 2003

You are a respect for director/PCT，for straight to handling in this week above-mentioned problem is your responsibility! I hope you Happy New Year, thank you!

Yours faithfully,

Applicant : Lin Zhen Man

10 Ava Road, Ava Tower, # 19-07

Singapore 329949 Jan. 13, 2004