![1.3.9 1.3.9](https://dailyverses.net/images/en/niv/1-peter-3-9.jpg)
In the case at issue the claim feature in question would have had to be deleted to achieve consistency with the original disclosure however this was not possible under Art. 123(3) EPC 1973. That also applied if the feature had not initially been disclosed in the form appearing in the claim (see also e.g. The board in T 1018/02 stated that although a claim was not to be interpreted in a way which was illogical or did not make sense, the description could not be used to give a different meaning to a claim feature which in itself imparted a clear, credible technical teaching to the skilled reader. Based on the understanding of the added feature gained by this claim interpretation, the board arrived at the conclusion that adding the feature to claim 1 as originally filed in isolation from its structural and functional context presented a new teaching not originally disclosed. Though he strives in principle to understand a claim within the wording and terms of the claim itself, he may, where he encounters ambiguities, need to consult the description and drawings to gain a better understanding. In T 1946/10 the board held that according to established jurisprudence the skilled person interprets a claim with a mind willing to understand, so as to arrive at an interpretation which is technically sensible and takes into account the whole disclosure of the patent.