3.1. Relevance of the evidence
In T 753/14 the opponent (appellant) requested that the board hear the proprietor of the patent in suit (respondent) under Art. 117(1)(a) EPC to clarify the scope of the disclosure in another of its patents (A10), which the opponent had cited as novelty-destroying prior art. In other words, the proprietor was to be heard with a view to obtaining information that had not been specified in A10 but, in the opponent's eyes, had to be known to the proprietor. The board did not order the requested hearing; it considered it unnecessary as it would provide new information that had not been publicly available on the basis of A10 at the time of filing of the patent in suit.