▁can ▁be ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁grounds ▁that ▁the ▁subject - m atter ▁of ▁the ▁pat ent ▁is ▁not ▁pat ent able ▁( Art icle ▁ 1 0 0 ( a ) ▁E PC , ▁for ▁instance ▁because ▁the ▁claimed ▁in vention ▁is ▁not ▁new ▁or ▁not ▁invent ive ), ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁the ▁in vention ▁is ▁ins u fficient ly ▁dis closed ▁to ▁allow ▁a ▁person ▁sk illed ▁in ▁the ▁art ▁to ▁carry ▁it ▁out ▁( Art icle ▁ 1 0 0 ( b ) ▁E PC ), ▁or ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁the ▁content ▁of ▁the ▁pat ent ▁extends ▁beyond ▁the ▁content ▁of ▁the ▁application ▁as ▁file d ▁– " or , ▁if ▁the ▁pat ent ▁was ▁granted ▁on ▁a ▁divis ional ▁application ▁or ▁on ▁a ▁new ▁application ▁file d ▁under ▁, ▁beyond ▁the ▁content ▁of ▁the ▁earlier ▁application ▁as ▁file d " – ▁( Art icle ▁ 1 0 0 ( c ) ▁E PC ). ▁An ▁opposition ▁can ▁for ▁instance ▁not ▁be ▁valid ly ▁based ▁on ▁the ▁grounds ▁that ▁the ▁in vention ▁la cks ▁unity ▁() ▁or ▁that ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁the ▁European ▁pat ent ▁does ▁not ▁belong ▁to ▁the ▁propriet or ▁of ▁the ▁pat ent ▁( ). ▁ ▁Fil ing ▁and ▁adm iss ibility ▁ ▁Before ▁starting ▁the ▁substant ive ▁exam ination ▁of ▁the ▁opposition , ▁the ▁O pp osition ▁Division ▁exam ines ▁whether ▁the ▁opposition ▁must ▁be ▁considered ▁as ▁file d ▁(" Is ▁there ▁an ▁opposition ? ") ▁and ▁whether ▁it ▁is ▁adm iss ible ▁(" Is