2. EPC Article 123(3). The question of what to do if the Opposition Division concludes that a limitation that had no proper basis in the original application was added during prosecution so that its deletion would broaden the claim was considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in Advanced Semiconductor products/conflicting requirements of article 123 paragraphs 2 and 3 Case G 1/93 [1994] OJ EPO 541, where it was held that in such circumstances, the patent could only be upheld if either the limitation did not provide a technical contribution but "merely limits the protection conferred by the patent as granted by excluding protection for part of the subject of the claimed invention as covered by the subject matter as filed" or if the offending subject matter can be replaced without broadening the claim. Amendment of a granted claim to replace an inaccurate technical statement which is evidently inconsistent with the totality of the disclosure by an accurate statement has been held to be permissible. Lockable Closure/Sears T 108/91 [1994] OJ EPO 228
3. Mobil oil/Frictionless additive G2/88 [1990] OJ EPO 93.
4. Cardiac pacing/Teletronics T82/93 [1996] OJ EPO 274. In this case, the board distinguished an earlier decision, Pacemaker/Siemens T426/89 [1992] OJ EPO 172 which had apparently allowed such a change of category on the ground that in the earlier case, the claim as granted had been unclear since the characterizing feature of the claim in question in that case had "exclusively contained features defining functioning of the pacemaker and was therefore already a product claim containing a functional definition of a pacemaker". Clarification of this fact by formal rewriting of the claim as a product claim therefore a mere clarification that did not broaden the scope of the claim.
5. Sears Roebuck/lockable closure T 108/91 [1994] 228
