In T 1051/96
the appellants re-introduced on appeal matter which, having been objected to under Art. 82 EPC 1973
by the examining division, had not been further prosecuted by them. The board held that the applicant could not be allowed, on appeal from a decision refusing the restricted claim on some other ground, such as lack of inventive step, to put forward a request which reverted to the broader claim and thus re‑introduced matter open to the objection of lack of unity. It decided that the admission of this request into the proceedings should be refused in the exercise of the board's discretion under R. 86(3) EPC 1973
(see T 63/86
, OJ 1988, 224). The board noted that this was because, as was clear from the Convention, in particular Art. 96 EPC 1973
, and had been stated in G 10/93
(OJ 1995, 172), it was the task of the examining division, and not that of the board of appeal, to carry out a full examination as to patentability requirements. Proceedings before the boards of appeal in ex-parte cases were primarily concerned with examining the contested decision.