General statements in the description which imply that the extent of protection may be expanded in some vague and not precisely defined way are not allowed.

GL F IV 4.3 Inconsistencies

Any inconsistency between the description and the claims must be avoided if it may throw doubt on the extent of protection and therefore render the claim unclear or unsupported under Art. 84, second sentence or, alternatively, render the claim objectionable under Art. 84, first sentence.

GL F IV 4.2 Interpretation

Each claim must be read giving the words the meaning and scope which they normally have in the relevant art, unless in particular cases the description gives the words a special meaning, by explicit definition or otherwise. Moreover, if such a special meaning applies, the division will, so far as possible, require the claim to be amended whereby the meaning is clear from the wording of the claim alone. This is important because it is only the claims of the European patent, not the description, which will be published in all the official languages of the EPO.

GL F IV 4.1 Clarity

The requirement that the claims must be clear applies to individual claims, i.e. to independent and dependent claims alike, and also to the claims as a whole. The clarity of the claims is of the utmost importance in view of their function in defining the matter for which protection is sought. Therefore, the meaning of the terms of a claim must, as far as possible, be clear for the person skilled in the art from the wording of the claim alone (see also F‑IV, 4.2).

GL F IV 4 Clarity and interpretation of claims

4.1 Clarity

4.2 Interpretation

4.3 Inconsistencies

4.4 General statements, "spirit of the invention", claim-like clauses

4.5 Essential features

4.6 Relative terms

GL F IV 3.9.3 Cases where the invention is realised in a distributed computing environment

Another common type of CII is realised in a distributed computing environment.

GL F IV 3.9.2 Cases where method steps define additional devices and/or specific data processing means

Where a method claim includes steps defined as being carried out by devices other than generic data processing means, a corresponding device and/or computer program claim may need more than a mere reference to the method claim as in formulations (i)-(iv) in F‑IV, 3.9.1, to fulfil the requirements of Art. 84 (see also F-IV, 3.8)

GL F IV 3.9.1 Cases where all method steps can be fully implemented by generic data processing means

A common type of CII relates to subject-matter where all the method steps can fully be carried out by computer program instructions running on means which, in the context of the invention, provide generic data processing functions. Such means can, for example, be embedded in a personal computer, smartphone, printer etc. In such inventions, although different claim structures are possible, the set of claims usually starts with a method claim.

GL F IV 3.9 Claims directed to computer-implemented inventions

The expression "computer-implemented inventions" (CII) covers claims which involve computers, computer networks or other programmable apparatus, whereby at least one feature is realised by means of a program.

Claims directed to CII should define all the features which are essential for the technical effect of the process which the computer program is intended to carry out when it is run (see F‑IV, 4.5.2, last sentence).

GL F IV 4.5 Essential features

GL F IV 4.4 General statements, "spirit of the invention", claim-like clauses