119. The representatives of Australia, Canada, Egypt, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Switzerland agreed that it would be useful if those Members that had not yet submitted information on the application of provisions as addressed in Article 27.3(b) in their territories would do so. Thus, the Council would have a more comprehensive basis for its work on the matter. In this regard, the representatives of the European Communities and Switzerland underlined the urgent need for developing country and transition economy Members to respond to the Secretariat's questionnaire relating to Article 27.3(b). The representative of Australia said that the exchange of information would help to address various questions, such as how national authorities had interpreted the term "micro-organism" as the limit to the scope of patentable subject-matter. Information on the choice of the options for protecting plant varieties and on the common elements of the national plant varieties protection systems might shed light on what would be considered as an effective sui generis system. The synoptic tables made by the Secretariat were heavily dominated by information on developed countries' systems. As further documentation was progressively provided by Members which had been under a transitional period, it would be possible for the review of Article 27.3(b) to be based on a more representative collection of information.
