I am a NZ practitioner and so will throw in a few comments from this end of the world.

Our preference has been to use the Australian examining and searching authority for all PCT applications. This was on the basis that the authority was prmopt, thorough, had a generally good reputation, and was cost effective.

I am now finding that it is becomiong easier and easier to overcome objections raised by the examiner and that the searches are not as thorough as they were previously.

This is having consequences for us later during national phase. The favourable IPRP is creating an impression in client's minds that their invention should fly through this second examination. this should be true in theory. When objections arise, we ahev to deal with client satisfaction and a general lack of faith in the patent system.

In Europe the search and examination is much more thorough. the longer I deal with this issue the more I am finding that this wuality is more desireable. Of course timeliness is important, but I am starting to loose focus on this as a primary feature to consider.

On the upside, search and examination fees in Australia are much lower than Europe which is a big plus for small clients. At least they can still delay by at least 30 moonths deciding on which countries to file.

David