In limitation proceedings there is no examination as to why a request for limitation was filed or whether the goal of the limitation has been achieved, for example if the amended and limited claims are truly novel vis-à-vis a particular prior art document.
In general there is no need to verify whether the limited claims contravene any of Art. 52
to Art. 57
. It may however happen that limitation results in prima facie
non-compliance with the patentability criteria, e.g. Art. 53
, in which case the examining division will communicate this non-compliance to the requester.
A granted claim directed to a generic plant is limited to a specific plant variety, which would be an exception to patentability (Art. 53(b) and G 1/98)
. As the amended claim then relates to a plant variety per se it is excluded from patentability under Art. 53(b) (G 1/98).
A claim granted to a device comprising a controlled explosion system is limited to a claim reciting an anti-personnel mine comprising the controlled explosion system, which would be contrary to Art. 53(a).