d) Choosing a sufficiently competent representative 

In J 23/87 the applicant failed to furnish a translation of an international application within the prescribed time limit. The appellant, a small Japanese firm with limited financial resources, submitted that a Japanese patent attorney without special knowledge of PCT matters had been consulted, and that this attorney had misinformed the appellant. The Legal Board held that for an applicant who lacked the necessary knowledge of the PCT and the EPC procedures, it was obviously necessary to consult a competent professional representative in order to cope with the procedures involved in such a patent application. Thus, the Legal Board was not satisfied that the appellant, being completely ignorant about the special procedure to be observed in this case, had chosen a sufficiently competent professional representative and let him properly advise the appellant on the matters involved having had an opportunity to study the details concerning the present application.