Posted on November 13, 2026
The European Patent Office (EPO) has issued a notice earlier this week setting out how it will implement decision G 1/25 in examination and opposition proceedings. The notice provides practical guidance on claim interpretation and the circumstances in which inconsistencies between the claims and description must be removed.
For further background, see our earlier articles on the referral in G 1/25 and the Enlarged Board of Appeal's decision clarifying when the description must be adapted.
A holistic approach to claim interpretation
The notice confirms that claims must always be interpreted in the light of the description and drawings, considered as a whole. The description and drawings are therefore not consulted only where a claim appears unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation.
The notice further clarifies that, while the description and drawings may inform how the skilled person understands the claims, they cannot be used to introduce limitations or extend the scope of the claims for which the claim wording provides no basis.
When must inconsistencies be removed?
The notice confirms that the mere presence of technical teachings, examples or embodiments outside the scope of the claims does not constitute an inconsistency. Formal conformity between the description and claims is therefore not required.
Accordingly, an inconsistency only needs to be removed where it cannot be resolved through normal claim interpretation and results in non-compliance with an EPC requirement. This may concern Articles 52 to 57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2) and 123(3) EPC, as well as the corresponding grounds for opposition under Article 100 EPC.
The EPO provides two practical examples:
- Where a feature required by an independent claim is described as optional in the description, for example using terms such as "may", "preferably" or "optionally", this creates an inconsistency that must be removed.
- Where the description contains an embodiment with additional features not required by the claims, this does not, in itself, create an inconsistency. No adaptation is required in this situation.
Claim-like clauses and practical implications
The notice also confirms that claim-like clauses in the description do not need to be systematically deleted or amended. They only require adaptation where they create an inconsistency that results in non-compliance with an EPC requirement.
The notice sets out how the EPO will apply G 1/25 in examination and opposition proceedings. It confirms that applicants are not required to amend the description simply to achieve formal consistency with the claims. Instead, the focus is on whether an inconsistency creates a substantive problem under the EPC.
For applicants, this should help avoid unnecessary amendments to descriptions, particularly the removal of embodiments that are simply broader than the granted or amended claims.
The EPO Guidelines for Examination will be amended accordingly to reflect this guidance.
Please get in touch if you would like to discuss this topic further.
We are a European firm and assist our clients to protect their IP rights in the UK, Europe and worldwide from our offices in the UK and The Netherlands and through our international network of trusted local attorneys.
