A claim, whether independent or dependent, may refer to alternatives, provided that the number and presentation of alternatives in a single claim does not make the claim obscure or difficult to construe and provided that the claim meets the requirements of unity (see also F-V, 3.2.1 and F-V, 3.2).

All dependent claims referring back to a single previous claim and those referring back to several previous claims must be grouped together to the extent and in the most appropriate way possible. The arrangement must therefore be one which enables the association of related claims to be readily determined and their meaning in association to be readily construed. The division objects if the arrangement of claims is such as to create obscurity in the definition of the subject-matter to be protected.

Where an unjustified plurality of independent claims in the same category persists after the search (see B‑VIII, 4.1 and B‑VIII, 4.2) in the application under examination, an objection is raised under Rule 43(2). If no Rule 62a(1) invitation was sent at the search stage, the examining division can still raise an objection under Rule 43(2).

The EPC refers to different "categories" of claim ("products, process, apparatus or use"). For many inventions, claims in more than one category are needed for full protection. In fact, there are only two basic kinds of claim, viz. claims to a physical entity (product, apparatus) and claims to an activity (process, use).

The claims, as well as the description, may contain chemical or mathematical formulae but not drawings. The claims may contain tables but "only if their subject-matter makes the use of tables desirable". In view of the use of the word "desirable" in this rule, the division does not object to the use of tables in claims where this form is convenient.[Rule 49(9); ]