For example, if an application relates to a rubber composition comprising several ingredients and the applicant seeks to introduce the information that a further ingredient may be added, then this amendment should normally be objected to as offending against Art. 123(2). Likewise, in an application which describes and claims apparatus "mounted on resilient supports", without disclosing any particular kind of resilient support, objection should be raised if the applicant seeks to add the specific information that the supports are, or could be, e.g. helical springs.

If, however, the applicant were able to demonstrate that the drawings, as interpreted by the skilled person, show helical springs, the specific mention of helical springs would be allowable.

However, care should be taken when amendments are based on details which may only be derived from the schematic drawings of the original application. The manner in which a particular feature is depicted in the drawings may be accidental. In such cases, the skilled person must be able to clearly and unmistakably recognise from the drawings, in the context of the whole description, that the added feature is the deliberate result of the technical considerations directed to the solution of the technical problem involved. For example, the drawings may depict a vehicle in which approximately two thirds of the height of the engine is located below a plane tangent to the top of the wheels. An amendment which defines that the major portion of the engine is located below the given level would not infringe Art. 123(2) if the skilled person would recognise that such a spatial arrangement of the engine with respect to the wheels is in fact a deliberate measure directed to the solution of the technical problem (see T 398/00).