4.1 Clarity 

Art. 84 provides that the claims must define the matter for which protection is sought. It further provides that the claims must be clear and concise and supported by the description.

In view of the function of claims in defining the matter for which protection is sought, their clarity is of the utmost importance for reasons of legal certainty. The meaning of the terms of a claim must, as far as possible, be clear for the skilled person from the wording of the claim alone (see also F‑IV, 4.2). There should be no doubt as to which subject-matter is covered by the claims. The skilled person should be able to establish the scope of the claim without undue burden. Otherwise, the claim lacks clarity.

The requirement that the claims must be clear applies to individual claims, i.e. to independent and dependent claims alike, and also to the claims as a whole. Given the differences in the scope of protection which may be attached to the various claim categories, the division must ensure that the wording of a claim leaves no doubt as to its category.

The correct response to any lack of clarity in a claim is amendment (G 1/24; see also F‑IV, 4.2 and F‑IV, 4.3).

The requirement that the claims must be clear applies to individual claims, i.e. to independent and dependent claims alike, and also to the claims as a whole. The clarity of the claims is of the utmost importance in view of their function in defining the matter for which protection is sought. Therefore, the meaning of the terms of a claim must, as far as possible, be clear for the skilled person from the wording of the claim alone (see also F‑IV, 4.2). Given the differences in the scope of protection which may be attached to the various claim categories, the division must ensure that the wording of a claim leaves no doubt as to its category.

Where the claims are found to lack clarity under Art. 84, a partial European or supplementary European search report may be issued under Rule 63 (see B‑VIII, 3.1 and B-VIII, 3.2). In such cases, in the absence of appropriate amendment and/or convincing arguments from the applicant as to why the invitation under Rule 63(1) was not justified, an objection under Rule 63(3) will also be raised (see H‑II, 5).