c) Illogical and technically inaccurate claim features 

In T 2002/13 the board referred to established case law, in particular T 190/99 (see chapter II.E.2.3.3) according to which the claims must be read with a mind willing to understand and to make technical sense of them, thereby ruling out illogical or technically meaningless interpretations. The board recalled that the claims were directed to a person skilled in the art. However, the case law did not allow the reader to disregard an illogical or technically inaccurate feature of a claim and hence to interpret such a feature in a correct manner. Thus, if a claim included contradictory features, this contradiction could not be resolved by merely disregarding the technically inaccurate feature and considering only the convenient technically meaningful feature. All the less so when assessing the compliance of these two features with Art. 123(2) EPC. In the board's view, any other approach would provide an unwarranted advantage to the patentee/appellant. See also the summary of T 81/13 in chapter II.E.1.4.7 "Elimination of inconsistencies and unclear features".

In T 1071/23, the board concluded that the skilled person with a mind willing to understand and reading the claim would conclude that the disputed feature was technically not feasible and had no basis in the application as originally filed. The fact that G 1/24 stated that (in the context of assessing patentability of an invention – not added subject-matter) the description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims, did not cause the board to reconsider its view. Even consulting the description or the drawings could not alter this finding, rather G 1/24 confirmed the primacy of the claims.