In T 79/91
the board stated that lack of clarity of the claims as a whole could arise from lack of conciseness. The invention in this case had been set out in at least ten independent claims of different scope. The board was of the opinion that this presentation made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the matter for which protection was sought, and placed an undue burden on others seeking to establish the extent of the monopoly. Citing this case, the board found in T 596/97
that, prima facie, a total of seven independent claims could be undesirable for reasons of conciseness and clarity. However, on the facts of the specific case before it, the board found the independent claims to be acceptable.