1. If from the wording of an independent claim it must be concluded that a solution of the problem of the invention is achieved by not needing a step, whereas this very feature according to the description cannot be abolished, but is necessary for a workable solution, the board considers such a feature an essential feature of the invention. An independent claim missing this feature is therefore considered to be neither clear, nor supported by the description (see reasons 3.2).

2. If the examining division refuses consent to the latest submitted amended set of claims which had been put forward in substitution for the claims on file before under Rule 86(3) EPC 1973 the previous set of claims that the examining division had consented to consider but was not maintained as an auxiliary request is not automatically revived. In accordance with Article 113(2) EPC and established case law (see e.g. T 0237/96) a decision cannot be based on the previous set of claims (see reasons 8.2).