Key points
- "it is evident from the minutes of the oral proceedings before the opposition division (point 26) that the chair had indicated that, after having discussed three main requests in the proceedings, only one further request would be allowed without any consideration being given to (the) others, which is a further substantial procedural violation (see also T 756/18, Reasons 3)."
- The headnote of T 756/18 in translation: "The Opposition Division exceeds the appropriate limits of its discretion when it declares that it admits only one auxiliary request and immediately rejects additional requests without apparent valid reasons and without even having examined whether the amendments would have made it possible to set aside all the objections validly raised until then without giving rise to new ones, thus making them potentially admissible."
EPO
The link to the decision is provided after the jump, as well as (an extract of) the text of the decision.
source http://justpatentlaw.blogspot.com/2023/03/t-121421-only-one-further-request.html
