e) Combination of end points of different levels of preference for several aspects of a composition

In T 948/13 the subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 3 had been generated by combining a number of numerical ranges of different levels of preference (general range, most preferred range) for various aspects of the composition. The board held that the selection of these ranges in combination was neither disclosed as such nor otherwise suggested in the application as originally filed.

For a further case in which each of the added features (including ranges of parameters) were, in the board's view, disclosed in the application as filed, though not in combination, see e.g. T 1853/13 (with regard to claim 1 of auxiliary request 2).

In T 2514/16, the board considered it allowable to combine thresholds from different levels of preference (see the summary in chapter II.E.1.5.1a) above). It also found that combining this limitation with a second amendment (limiting the amount of metal cation with end points in line with the most preferred embodiment) was directly and unambiguously derivable from the original application. It noted that the two amendments amounted to a limitation of a feature that had already been present in original claim 2, with both features characterising the salt that was necessarily used in the claimed method (see also the summary in chapter II.E.1.6.1c) below).