b) Decisions where it was immediately evident that nothing else would have been intended than what was offered as the correction 

In T 2303/10 the board held that it would be obvious to the skilled person that the first of the two alternative corrections mentioned by the examining division was totally incompatible with what was disclosed in the application as originally filed, whereas the second was technically feasible and entirely consistent with the disclosure and therefore allowable.

T 163/13 concerned the correction of "72EF" to "72°F". The board held that the only possible correction having a technical meaning in the present context was the temperature, as it was an essential parameter for the test in question. Consequently, the skilled person would immediately consider that "F" meant "Fahrenheit" and make the correction accordingly.

In T 657/11 the board held that the requested correction was obvious. It could not accept the argument of the respondent that the correction was not obvious because the wrong wording of the claim was also to be found in one passage of the description as filed. In fact, apart from this one passage, the rest of the description, the working examples and the figures were in line with the perceived correction. The board also excluded another possible correction because, although theoretically and technically possible, the skilled person would immediately reject it.

For more examples where the error and the correction were obvious to the skilled person, see T 1436/19 and T 1597/22.