b) No new complexity introduced – objection admitted 

In T 310/18 the appellant (opponent) raised an objection regarding lack of inventive step starting from D2 in view of D15 for the first time about a month before the oral proceedings. However, since an attack starting from D15 in view of D2 had already been dealt with in the decision under appeal, the relevant technical content of these documents had been discussed extensively during the earlier stages of the appeal proceedings. The board considered that starting from D2 instead of D15 did not introduce any complex matters but merely relied on a combination of the previously discussed features. The respondent and the board were thus able to deal with the objection during the oral proceedings. Under these circumstances the board decided to admit the objection into the proceedings (Art. 13 RPBA 2007, Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020 and Art. 13(3) RPBA 2020 and Art. 25(3) RPBA 2020; Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 not yet being applicable). However, see also T 140/15, summarised in chapter V.A.4.4.6i), where a new objection based on the same combination of documents but starting from a different closest prior art was not admitted.