4.3.7 Submissions that should have been submitted or which were no longer maintained at first instance – Article 12(6), second sentence, RPBA 2020
This section has been updated to reflect case law and legislative changes up to 31 December 2023. For the previous version of this section please refer to the "Case Law of the Boards of Appeal", 10th edition (PDF). |
In T 1188/16 the board, applying Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 12(6) RPBA 2020, came to the conclusion that the request of the appellant (proprietor) should have been filed in the first-instance proceedings. At the latest during the oral proceedings before the opposition division, the appellant, which had already been aware of a general objection regarding an intermediate generalisation, had received an unambiguous indication which features were missing from the claim and thus been in a position then to file requests including the omitted features. For a counter-example, see T 938/20 summarised in this chapter V.A.4.3.7b) above.