The appeal proceedings do not have the purpose of starting a new examination of different subject-matter, in particular where such subject-matter involves the broadening of claims considered by an opposition division (T 144/09, T 1616/10).
Also in T 1616/10 the main request and auxiliary request 1 were not admitted into the proceedings, because claim 1 was broader than all requests underlying the appealed decision and the requests could have been filed in first-instance proceedings.
In T 1719/13 the auxiliary request corresponded to auxiliary request 1 found allowable by the opposition division, except for the addition of dependent claim 5. The board referred to the consistent case law that the opposition proceedings may not be used to tidy up the patent by adding one or more dependent claims; such an addition was normally inadmissible under R. 80 EPC (see for instance T 993/07). By the same token, the board considered the addition of one or more dependent claims in appeal proceedings to a claim request held allowable by the opposition division to be an attempt to tidy up the allowable claim request and thus not admissible under Art. 12(4) RPBA 2007.
See also the decisions reported in chapters V.A.5.11.3e) "Requests which could have been presented at first instance", V.A.5.11.3i) "Resubmission of requests withdrawn at opposition stage" and V.A.5.12.14 "Reverting to broader claims, especially those as granted".