GL H IV 2.2.6 Citation of prior art in the description after the filing date

There is normally no objection to an applicant introducing, by amendment, further information regarding prior art which is relevant; indeed this may be required by the examining division (see F‑II, 4.3, and F‑III, 8).[Art. 123(2); ]

GL H IV 2.2.5 Priority documents

Under Art. 123(2) it is impermissible to add to a European application matter present only in the priority document for that application (see T 260/85), unless this is done under the provisions of Rule 56(3) (H‑IV, 2.3.2). For correction of errors, see H‑VI, 4.

GL H IV 2.2.4 Sequence listings filed after the date of filing

A standardised sequence listing filed after the date of filing does not form part of the description (Rule 30(2)).

GL H IV 2.2.3 Claims filed after the date of filing

Claims filed after the date of filing under Rule 58 are never considered to be part of the application documents "as originally filed" and must therefore comply with the requirements of Art. 123(2) (see A‑III, 15).

GL H IV 2.2.2 Missing parts of the description or missing drawings filed after the date of filing

The procedure under Rule 56 allows the applicant to file missing drawings or parts of the description subsequently, and to rely on the priority document in order to avoid re-dating of the application to the date of filing of the missing parts. Under Rule 56(3), re-dating is only avoided where the missing parts were "completely contained" in the priority document (see C‑III, 1, and A‑II, 5).

GL H IV 2.2.1 Features described in a document cross-referenced in the description

Features which are not disclosed in the description of the invention as originally filed but which are only described in a cross-referenced document which is identified in such description are prima facie not within "the content of the application as filed" for the purpose of Art. 123(2).

GL H IV 2.2 Content of the application as "originally" filed – general rules

Under Art. 123(2), it is impermissible to add to a European application subject-matter which the skilled person cannot derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge and also taking into account any features implicit to a person skilled in the art in what is expressly mentioned in the document, from the disclosure of the application as filed.

GL H IV 2.1 Basic principle

The question of allowability of amendments is legally a question of whether the application as so amended is allowable.

GL H IV 2 Allowability of amendments under Art. 123(2)

2.1 Basic principle

2.2 Content of the application as "originally" filed – general rules

2.3 Content of the application as "originally" filed – special applications

2.4 Assessment of "added subject-matter" – examples

GL H IV 1 Introduction

Chapters H‑II and H‑III deal with the admissibility of amendments, i.e. whether the competent department of the EPO will admit amended application documents or an amended patent specification into the procedure. After an amendment has been admitted into the procedure, the competent department must then decide whether the amendment is allowable, i.e. whether it satisfies the requirements of the EPC. It is important to note that an admissible amendment is not automatically allowable.