c) No reasons for decision 

In T 493/88 (OJ 1991, 380) the board held that a decision of an opposition division rejecting an opposition had not been correctly reasoned within the meaning of R. 68(2), first sentence, EPC 1973 if, after giving the reasons why it, unlike the opponent, considered the subject-matter of the patent to be new, it failed to state the reasons why it considered that the subject-matter also involved an inventive step.

In T 1532/21 the board agreed with the appellant that the examining division had not provided any reasoning for its assertion in the contested decision that the technical effect of the distinguishing features had not been achieved over the whole scope of claim 1. Nor had the contested decision indicated the part of the scope of the claims over which the technical effect had not been achieved. Under these circumstances, the appellant had been forced to speculate how the claims had to be limited so as to ensure that the technical effect was achieved over their whole scope. Instead of providing a logical sequence of arguments, the examining division had raised a number of questions.

In T 1411/07 the board found that the opposition division's failure to make any reference to its thinking on the factual and legal circumstances of the case, and the total absence of a logical train of thought, had left both the parties and the board in the dark as to what considerations had led it to the conclude that the opposition was to be regarded as adequately substantiated. The board was thus of the view that the contested decision was not reasoned within the meaning of R. 68(2) EPC 1973 (see also T 2245/12).

In T 1553/07 the opposition division had not explained why it believed that there had been public prior use and how it had arrived at this conclusion. Nor was it apparent what its considerations had been in arriving at its conclusion regarding novelty. The board was thus precluded from reviewing whether or not its conclusions were justified and so ruled that the decision had not been reasoned within the meaning of R. 68(2), first sentence, EPC 1973.

Where there was no explanation of how the examining division had arrived at its conclusion that the claimed process was an obvious juxtaposition of certain documents, this was held insufficient (T 292/90).

In T 708/00 (OJ 2004, 160) the board found that neither the communications nor the examining division's decision went beyond a list of the features appearing or lacking in the claimed inventions, which was obviously not an appropriate way to substantiate the lack of unity of invention. Since lack of unity was a central issue in these proceedings and an important reason for refusing the application, this lack of substantiation had to be regarded as a substantial procedural violation.

In T 153/89 the examining division had given no reasons for finding in its decision that the subject-matter of the dependent claims was not inventive. The board of appeal took the view that the perfunctory statement in the contested decision did not permit the board to judge whether this issue had been sufficiently investigated, or investigated at all. The examining division's decision on such grounds did not amount to a reasoned decision.

In T 698/94 neither the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division nor the appealed decision itself contained the slightest hint at the arguments brought forward by the parties. Nor did the reasons address the decisions of the Enlarged Board that had been cited in the summary of facts and submissions. It was impossible for the parties to the proceedings to see how the opposition division had arrived at its conclusion of lack of novelty. The losing party was deprived of its legitimate right to challenge the reasoning on which the decision was based, which was the very purpose of proceedings before the boards of appeal (see G 9/91, OJ 1993, 408). See also T 135/96, T 652/97.

In T 1747/06 the board, distinguishing the situation before it from that in T 856/91, where it had been decided that even incomplete and deficient reasoning still amounted to reasoning for the purposes of R. 68(2) EPC 1973, found that no reasons at all had been given since it was unclear whether or not any of the documents cited had been considered by the opposition division in arriving at their decision and proper reasoning for the conclusion drawn was lacking. Further, it was unclear whether the statements made in the "Grounds for decision" actually reflected the view of the opposition division or merely that of, e.g., the patent proprietor (see also T 1366/05).

In T 1724/10 the board held that the juxtaposition of seemingly contradictory conclusions (e.g. acknowledgement of technical differences but no possibility to define a technical problem), presented in the contested decision as apodictically evident and without any factual support, does not constitute a "reasoned decision" within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC.

In T 1713/20, the examining division's reasoning with regard to a lack of inventive step was incomplete. Only individual points of the problem-solution approach were addressed in isolation and it was not clear in relation to which claims or claimed subject-matter the respective arguments or statements were made. There was no logical chain of argumentation concerning the assessment of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter. It was in particular not clear from the decision as a whole from which document(s) the examining division had started when examining inventive step. The board held that the requirement in R. 111(2) EPC of a decision being reasoned is not met if the decision merely contains statements that at best give rise to speculation about what the deciding body might have intended to express.

In T 3071/19 the examining division's decision had relied on a video which was no longer available at the time of the appeal decision. The board held that a decision open to appeal is not reasoned within the meaning of R. 111(2) EPC if it does not enable the board of appeal to review its correctness. A decision should therefore not rely on evidence accessible only at a web page which is not guaranteed to remain accessible and unchanged. Rather, it should be ensured that a person inspecting the file can reliably access the cited evidence, for example by using appropriate screenshots as evidence of what was shown in the video. Essentially the same situation was dealt with in T 3000/19 in that the video on which the decision was based was no longer available as of the date of the board’s decision. The board found that the screenshot included in the file was clearly insufficient for the judicial review of the decision under appeal. Furthermore, it was not apparent from the file whether the video's content had been collected, preserved and/or stored in a manner which guaranteed accessibility for members of the judiciary or interested parties. According to the board, when a video retrieved from the internet is used as prior-art evidence for refusing a patent application, its content, in a form suitable for reviewing the decision, and metadata evidence demonstrating when and how it was made available to the public should be preserved and made accessible over time to interested parties and judicial bodies.

In T 505/20 the board found that the opposition division’s failure to consider the valid claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 submitted at the oral proceedings caused that reasons given by the opposition division for holding auxiliary request 1 filed at the oral proceedings allowable did not relate to claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 as actually maintained by the opposition division. As a consequence, at least some of the conclusions reached by the opposition division were not duly supported by the reasons given for the decision. The board held that the decision was not reasoned, constituting a substantial procedural violation.