In T 1002/92 (OJ 1995, 605) the board stated that, when considering the admissibility of a further ground for opposition not covered by the notice of opposition after expiry of the opposition period, both before an opposition division and before a board of appeal, the Enlarged Board (G 10/91, OJ 1993, 420) was necessarily implicitly considering the admissibility of such a fresh ground in combination with at least an indication of the fresh facts and evidence intended to support it. The mere stating of a fresh ground without any indication of the fresh facts, evidence and argument supporting it would obviously be inadmissible, either within or after expiry of the opposition period. The board then went on to conclude that it would be illogical to have one criterion for the admissibility of late-filed new facts, evidence and arguments in combination with a fresh ground, and a different criterion for judging the admissibility of late-filed new facts, evidence and arguments in support of a ground for opposition already covered by the opposition statement. Hence, in the board's view, it followed that the principles set out by the Enlarged Board in the opinion G 10/91 as underlying the admissibility of fresh grounds for opposition, were also generally applicable to the admissibility of late-filed new facts, evidence and arguments intended to support grounds for opposition already covered by the opposition statement. For further details on examination of fresh facts and evidence, see in this chapter IV.C.4. "Late submissions" below.