In T 1205/12 and T 1206/12, which are worded identically, the board held that a mere reference to jurisprudence of the boards of appeal did not, by itself, constitute or replace an argument in a first instance decision. If a deciding body, in a decision, wanted to rely on an argument put forward in a decision of the boards, be it part of its ratio decidendi or an obiter dictum, it was insufficient merely to refer to it or to cite it. The deciding body also had to make clear that it adopted the argument and explain why, in what respect and to what extent this argument applied to the case at hand.
In T 227/95 the contested decision contained no reasons on the merits of the case but merely stated: "for the reasons it is referred to the decision of the board of appeal dated 24.01.94" (meaning T 527/92). However, T 527/92 contained no such reasons, since the case was remitted to the opposition division for further prosecution. The requirements of R. 68(2) EPC 1973 were not met.