In T 14/89
(OJ 1990, 432) the board pointed out that the principle of good faith governing proceedings between the EPO and the parties involved required that the applicant have his attention drawn to deficiencies
in his application for re-establishment of rights which were obviously easy to correct
(in the case in point: fee not paid and substantiation not supplied) if correction of the deficiencies could be expected within the two-month time limit for restitutio under Art. 122(2) EPC 1973
. If this communication was not sent by the EPO within the two-month time limit, it had to be sent subsequently and a new time limit set. Acts, the deficiencies of which were corrected within this set time limit, were deemed to have been performed in due time within the meaning of Art. 122(2) EPC 1973
. This case law was confirmed by the Legal Board of Appeal in a similar case, J 13/90
(OJ 1994, 456). In J 34/92
the board pointed out, however, that this only applied to time limits which were not absolute.