The board in T 835/11 held (in relation to a divisional application) that an amendment to the description could result in an inadmissible extension only if it changed the subject-matter. That might be the case, for instance, if the description initially defined a feature in the claims more narrowly than its usual meaning; deleting the definition from the description could then result in an inadmissible extension of the patent's subject-matter. Removing or adding examples might also affect how the claims were understood and so also change the patent's subject-matter (see e.g. T 1239/03, in chapter II.E.1.14.3 below). The boards had also repeatedly held that reformulating the problem to be solved could inadmissibly extend the patent's subject-matter (see e.g. T 13/84, OJ 1986, 253, in chapter II.E.1.14.6). By contrast amendments to the description which had no effect on the claimed subject-matter were not open to objection. In the case in hand, Art. 100(c) EPC had not been infringed. See also chapter II.E.1.14.4 "Shift in the interpretation of a claim by amendment of the description"; however see also chapter II.E.1.14.5 "Shift in the information provided by the examples after amendment of claims".