b) Requirement to identify each amendment to the case and provide reasons for timing of submission – Article 12(4), third sentence, RPBA 2020 

In T 28/20 the appellant did not explain why a new inventive-step objection (based on a different closest prior art) was first raised on appeal. The board, considering that the requirements of Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 were not fulfilled, made use of its discretion pursuant to Art. 12(4) RPBA 2020 not to admit this new objection into the proceedings.

In T 73/20 the appellant argued for the first time in the statement of grounds of appeal that there was a technical prejudice in the art against combining the teachings of D1 and D2. It neither identified the amendment to its case nor provided reasons for submitting it only in the appeal proceedings. As this submission could not be justified as a legitimate reaction to late developments in the opposition proceedings and created a new situation on appeal, the board exercised its discretion not to admit the new argument.

See also the ex parte case T 2030/21, in which the board underlined that the statement of grounds of appeal should also have explained why it had not been necessary to file the claim request already in the first-instance proceedings (cf. Art. 12(6), second sentence, RPBA 2020).