In T 281/03 of 17 May 2006 date: 2006-05-17 the board found that the reason for the third partiality objection was essentially the same as that already decided by the replacement board in connection with the second partiality objection. Since the new objection had been made directly upon resumption of the oral proceedings after the respondent's previous objection to partiality had been refused, no new reason for objection could exist, so that the objection was simply a repetition of the previous objection and amounted to an abuse of the proceedings. Hence, the board decided that the request was inadmissible.