The question whether a request for oral proceedings has been made must be decided on the individual facts of each case. Whether a request in the legal sense has been made does not merely depend upon the actual use of the word "request" (T 283/88, T 263/91, T 1829/10). If there is the slightest doubt, clarification should be sought from the party concerned (see e.g. T 299/86 date: 1987-09-23, OJ 1988, 88; T 19/87; OJ 1988, 268; T 870/93; T 417/00; T 1829/10; T 2373/11; T 2557/12; T 1500/13).

If an EPO department has any doubt as to whether a party has requested oral proceedings (e.g. if the request is for a "hearing"), it must clarify the matter in order to avoid committing a substantial procedural violation (T 1829/10, T 2373/11, T 1972/13). As a request for an "interview" is different from a request for oral proceedings, the examining division can refuse such a request without seeking clarification (T 1606/07, T 1976/08).

Nevertheless, in T 528/96, the board explained that, although the opposition division might reasonably have been expected to query whether a request for oral proceedings was in fact intended, the fact that it failed to do so did not constitute a procedural violation, since the onus to make a clear request was on the party itself (see also T 26/07).