f) Request paraphrased and not set out in full 

In T 2154/19 the appellant (patent proprietor) argued that auxiliary requests 2 and 3 filed at the oral proceedings did not amend its appeal case because they had already been filed in a passage in its grounds of appeal. However, the claim sets had merely been paraphrased there; they had not been set out in full. A sufficiently precise particular combination of claims selected from the auxiliary requests dealt with in the contested decision could not be identified from that passage. The board therefore considered that auxiliary requests 2 and 3 amended the appeal case.