The board in T 1224/14 found that an amendment designed to exclude a specific value from a range described as particularly preferred in the application as filed did not meet the G 2/10 criteria for an allowable disclaimer.

In T 285/03 the board found that the interpretation offered by the appellant amounted to a disclaimer although it was not phrased in the usual form. However, that disclaimer was not based on a particular prior art disclosure, whether accidental or not, but tried to delimit the claim against any potential prior art disclosure, contrary to the principles set out in G 1/03.