In T 1704/06
the appellant was not represented at the hearing. In view of the requirements of Art. 113(1) EPC
, the Board had to consider at the oral proceedings whether it was in a position to decide on this claim, which contained subject-matter not previously present in an independent claim. In the situation where an appellant submits new claims after oral proceedings have been arranged but does not attend these proceedings, a board has a number of different options. It can continue the examination in writing, remit the case, grant a patent, or reject the claims as inadmissible. But it can also refuse the new claims for substantive reasons, specifically lack of inventive step, even if the claims have not been discussed before and were filed in good time before the oral proceedings. This will in particular be the case if an examination of these substantive requirements is to be expected in the light of the prevailing legal and factual situation.