d) Reasonable expectation that the opponents familiarise themselves with the proposed amendments in the time available 

Whether the opponent could be expected to deal with the amendment during the oral proceedings (see above summary of T 491/09) was also considered an appropriate criterion in T 2415/13. Along similar lines, in T 281/99 the board approved the opposition division's admission of changes, filed during oral proceedings, which were minor (in addition to being in direct response to new objections).

In T 463/95 the board explained that consideration of a new or amended independent claim could reasonably be expected when such a new or amended claim results from a combination of features taken from granted claims which have been specifically opposed, since the opponents should already be familiar with the subject-matter (similarly T 577/97; distinguished in T 960/04).

In T 1261/13, the board held that the object and purpose of R. 116 EPC was to ensure that all parties and the division had enough time to thoroughly prepare for the oral proceedings. As a rule, therefore, requests meeting the R. 80 EPC requirements and filed before expiry of the time limit under R. 116 EPC were admissible. In the board's view, that also went for requests with claims containing features taken from the description.

In T 43/16, the opposition division had considered the proprietor's reverting to the granted claims two weeks before the oral proceedings to be inadmissible. The board, however, considered that it was not unreasonable to expect the opponent to revisit the granted claims and its own line of argument in the notice of opposition within that time frame.

In T 491/09 the third auxiliary request filed during the oral proceedings was not going in a different direction, but was prepared on the basis of the 3^rd auxiliary request filed before the deadline of one month before the oral proceedings. The amendments therein exactly addressed the issues the appellant was well aware of before the oral proceedings since it had raised objections on them at the oral proceedings. The board could therefore only conclude that the appellant had had sufficient opportunity to familiarise itself with the amended subject-matter.