g) Incoherent use of terminology 

In T 1760/21 the board explained that in view of the incoherent use of the terms "forming" "being formed" and "formed product" in the application as originally filed, there was ambiguity as to the intended meaning of "forming". Therefore it was not unambiguous that forming was supposed to be a synonym of shaping. The step of "forming said alloy plate at a temperature in a range of 200°C to 400°C" was thus not directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as originally filed.

This was the approach followed in T 241/13, where the board held that the fact that an ambiguous expression as filed may be interpreted in a particular way was not sufficient to ensure that an amendment based on that interpretation complied with Art. 100(c) EPC, which required a direct and unambiguous disclosure in the application as filed.