b) Amendment not allowed

In T 1464/05, however, the board said that the attempt of the respondent (patent proprietor) to see in the upper ends of range values a removable inconsistency in the application as filed could not, in the context of a wholly consistent and clear disclosure of the application, be accepted.

In T 1099/21 the board explained that any unclarity that may arise from an ambiguity in an application as filed was to the detriment of a patent proprietor, who was ultimately responsible for the drafting of the application as filed and its claims. The fact that a feature in the application as filed was unclear could not therefore justify or excuse the complete deletion of the unclear feature or its replacement by another feature if this resulted in an extension beyond the content of the application as filed.