Any amendments made in opposition proceedings must be occasioned by the grounds for opposition specified in Art. 100. That is to say, amendments are admissible only if they are required in order to meet a ground for opposition. However, the ground for opposition does not actually have to have been invoked by the opponent. For example, in opposition proceedings admissibly opened on grounds of non-patentability, the patent proprietor can also submit amendments to remove added subject-matter.

The examining division will apply the criterion of "clear allowability" in exercising its discretion under Rule 137(3) for treating requests filed after the final date set in accordance with Rule 116(2) without proper justification (T 153/85).

These late-filed claims will only be admitted into the proceedings if they are clearly allowable.

Once the applicant has approved the text communicated to him pursuant to Rule 71(3), by paying the fees and filing the translation of the claims, further requests for amendment will only exceptionally be admitted under the discretionary power of the examining division given by Rule 137(3).

If the application was one of the exceptional cases (i), (ii) or (iii) mentioned in H‑II, 2.2 and no communication under Art. 94(3) has preceded the communication under Rule 71(3), the applicant may amend the description, claims and drawings of their own volition (see C‑III, 2; see also C‑II, 3.1) within the time limit for

Decision G 7/93 dealt with the criteria to be applied when examining the admissibility of late-filed amendments in examination. The particular case to which that decision relates arose when the rules were differently formulated, and in a situation where the applicant had already consented to the version proposed by the examining division. However, what was said by the Enlarged Board in that case can be considered generally applicable to new requests put forward at a late stage of the proceedings, i.e.