l) Embodiment never claimed 

In T 2787/17 an embodiment previously disclosed only in the description was first added to – and thereby limited – a claim after the summons had been notified. The board found that the patent proprietor had failed to put forward any cogent reasons justifying exceptional circumstances. In particular, the board disagreed with its argument that the amended auxiliary request was clearly allowable and thus conducive to procedural economy. Nor was it persuaded by the argument that the limitations to particular embodiments could not come as a surprise because the proceedings thus far had been largely devoted to how the general term now narrowed down by these limitations was to be understood. That, it held, was instead an indication that the patent proprietor should already have submitted such fallback positions at the opposition stage. See also T 1080/15 (summarised in chapter V.A.4.5.11d)).