4.3.7 Submissions that should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained at first instance – Article 12(6), second sentence, RPBA
In T 1188/16 the board, applying Art. 13(1) RPBA and Art. 12(6) RPBA, came to the conclusion that the request of the appellant (proprietor) should have been filed in the first-instance proceedings. At the latest during the oral proceedings before the opposition division, the appellant, which had already been aware of a general objection regarding an intermediate generalisation, had received an unambiguous indication which features were missing from the claim and thus been in a position then to file requests including the omitted features. For a counter-example, see T 938/20 summarised in this chapter V.A.4.3.7c) above.