T 0246/22 (Software update for an elevator system/OTIS) vom 09.01.2024

Inventive step - main, 1st and 10th auxiliary requests (no): juxtaposition of obvious features
Admittance of "carry-over requests" - 3rd to 8th auxiliary requests (no): not demonstrated that "admissibly raised" and not suitable to address the relevant issues; T 42/20 and T 476/21 not followed
Admittance of claim requests filed on appeal - 2nd, 9th and 11th auxiliary requests (no): not suitable to address the relevant issues and not convergent

I. The onus to "demonstrate" that submissions were
"admissibly raised and maintained" within the meaning of
Article 12(4) RPBA lies, as a general rule, with the
party.
II. The minimum requirement under Article 12(4), first
sentence, RPBA for demonstrating that claim requests were
"admissibly raised" in the proceedings leading to the
decision under appeal is twofold, namely that the party
shows
(1) that the requests were filed in due time, typically
before the expiry of the time limit set by the
opposition division under Rule 116(1) and (2) EPC,
and
(2) that it was made clear, explicitly or by way of
unambiguous implication, for what purpose the
requests were filed, i.e. which objections raised by
the other party or the opposition division they try
to overcome and how this is actually achieved.