a) Meaning of the time limit set in the communication under Article 15(1) RPBA 2020 

In T 1756/16 the board refused under Art. 13(2) RPBA 2020 to admit an inventive-step objection raised only after the summons to oral proceedings. It did not accept the appellant's argument that it had to be taken into account because it had been submitted within the period set in the board's communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA 2000. It pointed out that – even if, as in this case, a communication under Art. 15(1) RPBA 2020 often set the parties a time limit for filing any submissions, which would then be subject to the admission criteria in Art. 114(2) EPC and Art. 13 RPBA 2020 – it was not a communication under R. 100(2) EPC inviting them to file observations within a specified period. The appellant had therefore not been entitled to presume that any new objections would be admitted simply because they had been filed before that time limit. The board found that the appellant had also not put forward any cogent reasons demonstrating exceptional circumstances that might justify considering its objection. See also T 884/18.