In T 569/11 the fact that the appellant became aware of the board's communication only shortly before the oral proceedings was not per se a reason that obliged the board to postpone the proceedings. Nevertheless, it was necessary to verify whether, in the light of the content of the communication, a postponement should be made in order to allow time for the appellant to react to the comments made by the board. This required an analysis of the points covered in the communication. In the case in hand, the board's communication did not include any new objection or any new evidence in comparison with the decision of the examining division. The facts of the case did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance (see T 1610/08) that would justify a postponement of the oral proceedings.