In J 14/03
the board confirmed that evidence of a disruption within the meaning of R. 85(2) EPC 1973
provided by the appellant can lead to a retrospective extension of time in a particular case, as occurred in J 11/88
, if this evidence, had it been known at the time, would have been such as to warrant a Presidential statement under R. 85(2) EPC 1973
. However, the board found that in that case the quality of evidence was quite different from the case at issue, in which the only evidence of interruption was that of newspaper articles. The board considered this evidence inconclusive as the articles reported not only a number of problems caused by adverse weather and unofficial strikes, but also measures to deal with such conditions.