18.-(a) The examiner shall use at least one of the following additional means of examination:

(1) the list of documents used by patent authorities in any foreign state in the examination of a patent application on the same patent application, submitted in a foreign country by the applicant or by his predecessor in title to the invention;

(2) a list of documents published before the application date, known to the applicant and directly connected with the invention;

(3) copies of publications and documents, a list of which the applicant must submit under this Article, if the examiner so demands;

(4) copies of publications and documents mentioned in publications and documents, a list of which the applicant must submit under this Article, if the examiner so demands;

(5) transmission of the specifications of the application-in order to search for material that will enable the Office make the examination-to an institution is Israel or abroad, with which the Office contracted under any Law by an agreement drawn up by the Registrar, including a section on keeping any patent application confidential and on nondisclosure under section 165;

and to that end he may do one or more of the following:

(1) require the applicant to submit to him all the documents specified in paragraphs (1) to (4);

(2) transmit the specification in the application for the search said in paragraph (5).

[Applicant must keep Office informed]

18A. Until the application is accepted the applicant must keep the Office informed of any change in the list of publications and documents said in section 18, if he or his representative was made aware of the said changes.

Several leading practitioners including Adv. Arnan Gavrieli – senior partner at Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co. and a leading litigator and lecturer at Tel Aviv law school, believe that since the Patent Office only asks for citations, that is all one needs to provide. Others, including myself and Kfir Luzzatto believe that one shoul provide anything known.

The trouble with this case and the Nazareth ruling is that they relate to extreme examples. The Patent Office certainly does not want to be flooded with long lists of prior art.