As noted in T 1107/16, according to the explanatory remarks on Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020, the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate both why the amendment overcomes the issues raised by the board and why the amendment, prima facie, does not give rise to new objections.
In ex parte case T 1609/16 the board noted that the main request had manifestly been filed in reply to new clarity objections raised in its preliminary opinion. Moreover, the amendments to the original claims were straightforward, clearly addressed the outstanding issues in a manner already contemplated in the board's written opinion, and did not introduce any new subject-matter or raise new objections requiring further consideration. Hence the board exercised its discretion under Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 and decided to admit the main request into the appeal proceedings.
Similarly, in the ex parte case T 1278/18, the new request (filed after oral proceedings had been arranged) comprised amendments made in response to objections under Art. 84 and R. 29(7) EPC 1973 and Art. 123(2) EPC raised for the first time in the board's communication pursuant to Art. 15(1) RPBA 2020. Moreover, the independent claims of the new request differed from those of the main request, on which the appealed decision was based, essentially by the added limitations which had already been introduced in the first auxiliary request filed with the statement of grounds of appeal with the aim of overcoming all objections of lack of novelty raised in the appealed decision. The board considered that they could be regarded as an appropriate reaction to the appealed decision (Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007). It was also satisfied that the amendments to the claims were supported by the information in the application documents as originally filed, as indicated by the appellant, and concluded that the amendments to the claims clearly overcame all outstanding objections without introducing new issues.