In T 611/95 a research institute known in the field was in possession of a report anticipating the invention, which anyone could view at the institute or order from it on request. Two papers published prior to the priority date referred to this report and indicated where it could be obtained. In the board's view, the report was therefore publicly available. As far as availability to the public was concerned, the institute was not to be equated with a library, but the information in the documents had indicated to experts in the field that anyone could inspect or order the report there.

In ex parte case T 1130/11 the appellant (applicant) contested that D3 was publicly available and argued that it did not belong to the prior art because it was marked as internal report. Before the oral proceedings, the board performed a limited investigation on the internet about D3 and presented its results to the appellant during the oral proceedings. The board concluded that in the field of universities "Interner Bericht" did not mean confidential, but something like "technical report", and that D3 was publicly available prior art at the priority date.