b) Amendments that do not prima facie overcome the issues raised and/or give rise to new objections – not admitted 

In T 752/16 the board held that the reasons given by the respondent (patent proprietor) for filing new auxiliary requests after notification of the summons anyway did not amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020. Furthermore, the board held that the amendments gave rise to new objections. It was not convinced by the appellant's interpretation of the newly filed auxiliary requests. The features added to the method claim instead gave rise to new objections owing to a reference to the processed product, which was not at issue in the proceedings. The amendments were thus detrimental to procedural economy (Art. 13(1) RPBA 2020).

In ex parte case T 709/16 the board exercised its discretion under Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 in view of the suitability of the amendment in auxiliary request I to resolve the issue of lack of inventive step raised by the board. However, the amendment was not suitable to resolve this issue as it was only meant to clarify a certain feature and the inventive-step objection against the main request had already been based on the understanding this led to.

For further cases where the new requests were not admitted because, among other things, they did not (prima facie) overcome the issues raised, see T 2429/17 (ex parte, clarity objection), T 2692/18 (inter partes, inventive step objection), T 884/18 (inter partes, issue of priority), T 2271/18 (ex parte, clarity objection). For further cases in which the new requests gave rise to new objections, see e.g. T 995/18 (inter partes, new objection under Art. 123(2) EPC), T 2271/18 (ex parte, clarity objection).