In T 188/05 the board held that the admission of the appellant's (opponent's) new submission would alter his case in a way that would raise issues which the board and the respondent could not reasonably be expected to deal with without adjournment of the oral proceedings. The material was therefore not admitted to the proceedings pursuant to Art. 10b(3) RPBA 2003.
In T 1774/07 the introduction of the new documents into the proceedings without adjourning oral proceedings would have been contrary to the principle of equal treatment of the parties. The board thus concluded that the documents, independently on their relevance, were not to be introduced into the proceedings (Art. 13(3) RPBA 2007).
In T 232/08 the objection of lack of novelty based on document D11 was raised for the first time during appeal proceedings at the oral proceedings. The board considered that the respondent's right to be heard with regard to the novelty-objection based on document D11 would have been respected only if the oral proceedings had been adjourned or the case had been remitted to the department of first instance. Consequently the board had decided, in application of Art. 13(3) RPBA 2007, not to allow the appellant to present its novelty objection based on document D11. See also the similar case in T 139/12 (new evidence and lines of attack based on it not admitted).
In T 1058/15, the appellant raised a novelty objection based on a new document (D8) filed only a few weeks before the oral proceedings on appeal. Though, the novelty objection based on D8 did not amount to an entirely fresh ground for opposition (G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408), because novelty had already been challenged on the basis of a different document during the opposition proceedings. In the board's view, the circumstances and the interests at stake were nevertheless similar. Since the respondent had not agreed to the new document's admission, the board decided not to admit it, irrespective of its relevance.