R. 107 EPC corresponds to the similar provisions requiring substantiation of an opposition or an appeal, and in view of the exceptional nature of the remedy offered by the petition procedure, the burden it imposes on a petitioner can be no less than the equivalent burden placed by those provisions on opponents and appellants. Thus the contents of a petition must be sufficient for the petitioner's case to be properly understood on an objective basis and must be so presented as to enable the Enlarged Board (and any other parties) to understand immediately why the decision in question suffers from a fundamental procedural defect which can be the subject of an objection under the provisions on review (R 5/08, where the petition was held inadmissible). However, R. 107 EPC does not specifically require requests to be submitted. The only requirement which can be derived from the wording of R. 107(2) EPC is that the petition must make it clear that the petitioner wants the decision of the board of appeal to be set aside.
In R 4/12, the petitioner alleged that the board of appeal had failed to deal with the contention that D1 described means of accessing information but not services. Since this complaint had not been raised in the petition for review, it was entirely new and could therefore have no bearing whatsoever on the findings as to the petition's admissibility and merits reached on the basis of the grounds, facts, arguments and evidence set out in the petition.
The Enlarged Board has applied the established jurisprudence of the boards of appeal that mere payment of the appeal fee is not an act which suffices for the admissible filing of an appeal mutatis mutandis to the exceptional means of redress in accordance with Art. 112a EPC (R 2/10).