6.2.2 Recent case law following G 1/24
This section has been updated to reflect case law up to 31 December 2025. For the previous version of this section please refer to the "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 11th edition (PDF). |
In G 1/24 the Enlarged Board highlighted the importance of the examining division carrying out a high-quality examination of whether a claim fulfils the clarity requirements of Art. 84 EPC, and it stated that the correct response to any unclarity in a claim is amendment.
In recent decisions issued after G 1/24, the boards also followed the Order of G 1/24 when assessing clarity. For instance, in T 1351/23 the board consulted the description when interpreting the claim. It concluded that the limitations in a preferred embodiment were not incompatible with the clear meaning of the claim, which was the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention in accordance with G 1/24. Therefore, the consultation of the description did not change the clear meaning of the claim or render it ambiguous. See also T 1069/23.
In T 1775/23 the board held that the consultation of the description and drawings when interpreting the claims does not mean that in all cases definitions or meanings of the terms that may be implied by the description must necessarily be adopted (see also T 1561/23). Rather, the assessment depends on the circumstances of the specific case. Furthermore, as stated in G 1/24, the correct answer to an objection of lack of clarity in examination is amendment to remove any ambiguities as to what the intended protection may be.