T 1599/18 (Multispectral skin biometrics / HID 4) vom 24.06.2021

Novelty - (no)
Novelty - implicit disclosure (yes/no)
Right to be heard - opportunity to comment (yes)
Right to be heard - substantial procedural violation (no)
Late-filed request - request identical to request not admitted in first instance proceedings
Late-filed request - request could have been filed in first instance proceedings (yes)
Amendment to appeal case - suitability of amendment to resolve issues raised (no)

Lack of novelty (see point 14): there is no need that a prior art document explicitly mentions the claimed features. It is necessary and sufficient that an embodiment falling under the claim scope be directly and unambiguously derivable from the prior art document. That an alternative exists does not change this: it is possible that multiple alternatives can be considered directly und unambiguously derivable, even when none is explicitly mentioned.
Right to be heard (see points 18 and 29): the right to be heard does not entail a right to an amendment, but a right to present comments on why a specific request should be admitted to the proceedings.