1.4.4 The essentiality or three-point test
According to T 1365/16, in the more recent jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, the so-called "essentiality test" (as set out in T 331/87, see point a) above) is no longer considered appropriate (see also e.g. T 1852/13). In the same vein, T 2421/18, T 1736/18, T 1529/19, T 2432/19, T 435/21, T 1441/21, T 1638/21.
As highlighted by numerous decisions, it is the requirements of the "gold standard", which ultimately must be met when assessing any amendment for its compliance with Art. 123(2) EPC and by analogy with Art. 76(1) EPC (T 838/16 with reference to T 1852/13 and T 755/12; see also T 1462/14, T 1869/17, T 71/19 and T 1270/20). Several decisions have concluded that the essentiality test set out by decision T 331/87 was moot and should not be applied (T 2311/10, regarding intermediate generalisation; T 2599/12, T 830/16, T 1365/16, T 437/17; see also the further decisions cited in this chapter in II.E.1.4.4e)).