2.1.2 Cases where no new claims or relevant documents were introduced

In T 195/84 (OJ 1986, 121) the representative objected at the oral proceedings that new grounds were being presented, challenging the existence of an inventive step, to which he had not previously had an opportunity to reply. The board could not share this opinion as the representative had been aware that such prior art existed, and he had thus had sufficient time to consider it in full. Furthermore, he had not requested any additional time to examine this art in greater detail and had not asked for an adjournment.

In T 327/92 the board held that reliance by the opposition division at oral proceedings on a document originally cited in the opposition against a dependent claim only, as closest prior art against an amended main claim, did not amount to a substantial procedural violation where the patentee had the opportunity to comment at oral proceedings.

Quick Navigation