In T 610/95
the appellant failed to provide a reasoned argument to show that the filing of new independent claim 5 was indeed necessitated by a ground for opposition. The board referred to G 1/84
(OJ 1985, 299), which made it clear that the opposition procedure was not designed to be, and was not to be misused as, an extension of the examination procedure. It would, in the board's opinion, contravene the principles set out in G 1/84
if it was considered admissible to amend the text of a granted patent during opposition proceedings, while maintaining the sole independent claim under opposition, by incorporating an additional new independent claim which as such had no counterpart in the granted patent and, accordingly, was neither the subject of substantive examination in the examination procedure nor open to opposition owing to its non-existence in the granted patent.