In J 18/98
the examining division had refused the applicant's application for restitutio in integrum. An appeal was filed against that decision. From the established case law on Art. 122(3) EPC 1973
the board concluded that facts submitted only with the statement of grounds of appeal
could not be taken into account, since the function of appeal proceedings was only to give a judicial decision upon the correctness of an earlier decision of the department of first instance (T 34/90
, OJ 1992, 454). On the basis of the submission to be taken into account, the board decided that the applicant had not complied with his burden of allegation and proof. The vague statement that the assistant had been carefully trained and, during random checks, had proved to be knowledgeable and careful was not adequate, since no further details had been given of the selection conditions, of the training and checking, or of the office's mode of operation.