5.1.12 Converging or diverging versions of claims in opposition proceedings

In T 2254/17 the board was faced with the argument that the opposition division, when exercising its discretion, had failed to consider the criterion that claim sets filed shortly before the oral proceedings should be converging. The board noted that certain boards of appeal had applied the criterion that claim sets filed shortly before the oral proceedings should be converging in deciding whether to admit and consider a plurality of claim sets filed for the first time in appeal proceedings (e.g. T 1685/07). It found however that it was questionable whether converging claim sets could be regarded as an absolute requirement for allowing amendments in examination or opposition proceedings (see also T 996/12). In any case, it was apparent from the decision under appeal that the opposition division had considered non-converging claim sets to be justified in view of the numerous novelty objections raised by the opponents based on different documents.

See also the chapters on converging or diverging versions of claims: chapter IV.B.2.4.4 (examination procedure, with regard to amendments under R. 137(3) EPC); chapters V.A.4.2.2 and V.A.4.2.3 (convergent approach).