b) Suitability to solve the issues raised 

In T 1117/16 the board first emphasised that the fact that the appellant had not discovered the public prior use at issue in time did not justify disregarding the requirement of procedural economy or the need to act fairly towards the other parties. The board also could not see how the amendment to the appellant's case could resolve questions admissibly raised by the respondent. Rather, these amended submissions amounted to a completely new attack on the patent in suit, and one which had not been prompted by the respondent's submissions. Admitting the amendment would also have been detrimental to procedural economy, since, in the board's view, the documents submitted could not, prima facie, prove the alleged prior use up to the hilt ("lückenlos").

For further examples where the suitability criterion was among others applied, see T 23/17 (summarised in chapter V.A.4.4.6 a) (ii)), T 552/18 (summarised in chapter V.A.4.4.6 a) (xi)) and T 1217/17.