In T 528/96, the final paragraph of the patentee's response to the opposition – the last document on the file before the opposition division took its decision – read as follows: "Should the opposition division feel that further information is required, the patentee will be pleased to respond in due course, either in writing or during the oral hearing". The statement did not constitute a formal request for oral proceedings.

In T 299/86 date: 1987-09-23 (OJ 1988, 88) a party "reserved the right to request oral proceedings". This was interpreted as meaning that the party had not yet decided whether to request oral proceedings. See also T 263/91.

In T 433/87 the board interpreted the patent proprietor's request "to conclude the opposition proceedings and if necessary arrange oral proceedings as soon as possible" to mean that oral proceedings were requested only in the event of their being considered necessary by the opposition division. See also T 650/94.

The statement "if there are any outstanding problems, the writer would welcome an opportunity to discuss the case with the examiner" could not be understood as a valid request for oral proceedings either (T 88/87). See also T 454/93, T 1606/07, T 1500/13.

In T 60/13 the board did not consider the respondent's statement that "if an oral hearing was to take place we wish to attend" to constitute a request for oral proceedings. Furthermore, the indication regarding the language used in "possible oral proceedings" and the request to use Swedish in oral proceedings, after the statement that "we find it unnecessary to attend an oral proceeding" were not seen to constitute a clear request for oral proceedings.