In T 824/06 the opposition division had rejected the main request because its subject-matter included a temperature maximum for the first and the second cooling step whereas the application as originally filed disclosed the requirement that the surface is brought down to this maximum only in relation to the overall cooling treatment. The proprietor had argued that reducing the temperature to this value during the first cooling would be reasonable. The board stated that for an amendment to be allowable under Art. 123(2) EPC its direct and unambiguous disclosure was required; reasonable plausibility was insufficient.