a) Deletion of claims or alternatives within claims 

In T 1597/16 the admission of the new main request, which had been filed before the entry into force of the RPBA 2020, was at the board's discretion under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 13(1) RPBA 2007 (which applied instead of Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 by virtue of the transitional provisions). In the board's view, the respondent had not given any cogent reasons for waiting until the final stage of the appeal proceedings to file the amendment to the claim. It had merely asserted that the new request had first been prompted by the board's preliminary opinion in the communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA 2007. However, this did not convince the board because the communication had not raised any brand new issues. On the contrary, the objections it mentioned had been part of the appeal proceedings from the outset. Nonetheless, the board decided to admit the new main request into the proceedings for the following reasons. Limiting the claimed subject-matter to two out of the three alternatives in claim 1 as granted did not lead to any other disputed points of fact or patent law. The appellant (opponent) had been able to formulate an objection for lack of inventive step straight away and could otherwise refer to its written case, which matched that from the first-instance proceedings. Moreover, the board considered the new request to be prima facie allowable since it appeared to overcome all remaining objections without creating any new issues.

In T 682/16 the respondent (proprietor) filed a new request (which later became the main request) in response to the board's communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA 2007, without making any substantive submissions. The appellant did not provide any reasons against its admission. The board noted that, by deleting certain claims, the respondent had addressed all issues raised by the appellant and by the board. The request, which moreover did not give rise to new objections and contributed to the efficiency of the procedure, was admitted under Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 (Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 not being applicable yet).

In T 482/19, however, the board did not admit the new request, in which the method claims had been deleted, since the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances (Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020). See also T 2222/15.

In cases of limitation of the claimed subject-matter by deletions of claims or claim alternatives, the issue arises whether this is an amendment within the meaning of Art. 13 RPBA 2020 in the first place. For decisions on this issue, see chapter V.A.4.2.2.