In J 22/86 (OJ 1987, 280) the board made it clear that where the written statement did not contain such full reasons, the requirement for admissibility might be regarded as satisfied if it was immediately apparent upon reading the decision under appeal and the written statement that the decision should be set aside. According to the board, a well-drafted statement of grounds should contain reasoning that is full but concise. And, in general, it is obvious that the less reasoning that a statement contains, the greater will be the risk that the appeal will be rejected as inadmissible for non-compliance with Art. 108 EPC. The question whether a particular statement alleged to be a statement of grounds of appeal in a particular case meets the minimum requirement of Art. 108 EPC could only be decided in the context of that particular case; and the context of a particular case will normally include the contents of the decision under appeal. In a wholly exceptional case such as the one before the board, it might be immediately apparent to the board upon reading the decision under appeal and the statement of grounds that such decision cannot properly be supported, even though the grounds contained in such statement can fairly be described as minimal. See also J 2/87 (OJ 1988, 330), J 6/88, T 195/90, T 729/90 and J 1/14.