In T 360/13 the appellant waited until after the board's deliberations, but before it announced its decision, i.e. the point in the oral proceedings when the debate had already been closed and the case was ready for decision, to file a new auxiliary request amending its previous one by deleting a feature whose clarity had already been discussed. The board noted that, once the debate had been closed, the criteria for admitting new submissions were especially strict (Art. 15(5) RPBA 2007). In the case in hand, there was no justification at all for filing the new auxiliary request so late.
Continuation of the appeal proceedings after the end of oral proceedings is not, as such, a reason for admitting new submissions or additional evidence relating to issues which were not admitted at the first oral proceedings or in respect of which the debate had indeed been closed. In the board's view, presenting a party's case little by little, depending on the further evolution of the case, is not in line with the principle of procedural economy (T 577/11).