According to the established case law, "further prosecution" proceedings on remittal by the board of appeal are to be regarded as a continuation of the original opposition proceedings, particularly where the original interlocutory decision had been set aside by the board and was therefore no longer legally effective. Thus, with remittal, parties' requests valid in the opposition proceedings, including any auxiliary request for oral proceedings, become effective again, if they were not withdrawn (T 892/92, T 120/96, T 742/04, T 1425/05, T 1548/11).
In T 1866/08 the board considered that the appeal procedure was separate from the examination procedure (see, for example, G 8/91, T 34/90). It followed that a request for oral proceedings to be held before the examining division could not validly be made during the appeal proceedings. As a consequence, the appellant would have to file a new request for oral proceedings after the procedure was resumed by the examining division. T 901/10 confirmed T 1866/08, adding that a request for oral proceedings in possible further appeal proceedings in the future would have to be requested again during such proceedings.