4.2. Principles applying to late submissions

In T 369/15 the board conceded that the appellant (opponent) had not been legally obliged to comment on any auxiliary requests filed, but observed that it was up to each party to the proceedings to submit all facts, evidence, arguments and requests relevant for its case as early and completely as possible. Since the appellant had waited until the oral proceedings to raise its inventive-step objections against auxiliary request 1, which, albeit not filed until after those oral proceedings had been scheduled, was essentially the same as auxiliary requests filed with the reply to the appeal, the board disregarded them when deciding to admit auxiliary request 1 under Art. 13 RPBA 2007. In the board's view, that an auxiliary request filed with the reply had possibly not been fully substantiated could not justify the appellant's failure to submit any written observations at all on auxiliary request 1.