2. Allowability of amendments under Art. 123(2)
  1. Home
  2. Legal texts
  3. Guidelines for Examination
  4. Table of Contents
  5. Part H
  6. Chapter IV
  7. 2. Allowability of amendments under Art. 123(2)
  8. 2.2 Content of the application as "originally" filed
Print
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email

2.2 Content of the application as "originally" filed – general rules

Overview

2.2 Content of the application as "originally" filed – general rules 

A revised version of this publication entered into force.

Under Art. 123(2), it is impermissible to add to a European application subject-matter which the skilled person cannot derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge and also taking into account any features implicit to a person skilled in the art in what is expressly mentioned in the document, from the disclosure of the application as filed. Literal support is, however, not required by the wording of Art. 123(2) (see T 667/08).

The term "implicit disclosure" means no more than the clear and unambiguous consequence of what is explicitly mentioned in the application as filed. Thus, the common general knowledge must be taken into account in deciding what is clearly and unambiguously implied by the explicit disclosure of a document. However, the question of what may be rendered obvious by that disclosure in the light of common general knowledge is not relevant to the assessment of what is implicitly disclosed by that document (T 823/96, T 1125/07).

When assessing the conformity of the amended claims with the requirements of Art. 123(2), the focus is placed on what is really disclosed to the skilled person by the documents as filed as directed to a technical audience. In particular, the examining division needs to avoid disproportionally focusing on the structure of the claims as filed to the detriment of the subject-matter that the skilled person would directly and unambiguously derive from the application as a whole.

Furthermore, the assessment of the requirements of Art. 123(2) is made from the standpoint of the skilled person on a technical and reasonable basis, avoiding artificial and semantic constructions (T 99/13).

2.2.1 Features described in a document cross-referenced in the description
2.2.2 Missing parts of the description or missing drawings filed under Rule 56 after the date of filing
2.2.3 Erroneously filed application documents or parts under Rule 56a
2.2.4 Claims filed after the date of filing
2.2.5 Sequence listings filed after the date of filing
2.2.6 Priority documents
2.2.7 Citation of prior art in the description after the filing date
2.2.8 Clarifications
2.2.9 Trade marks
Previous
Next
Footer - Service & support
  • Service & support
    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary
Footer - More links
  • Jobs & careers
  • Press centre
  • Single Access Portal
  • Procurement
  • Boards of Appeal
Facebook
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
Instagram
EuropeanPatentOffice
Linkedin
European Patent Office
EPO Jobs
EPO Procurement
X (formerly Twitter)
EPOorg
EPOjobs
Youtube
TheEPO
Footer
  • Legal notice
  • Terms of use
  • Data protection and privacy
  • Accessibility