In T 1635/13 the board held that it was clearly set out in the board's communication that it expressed the "preliminary and non-binding" opinion of the board to streamline and prepare the oral proceedings. Therefore it was self-evident that the board could come to a different evaluation of the facts and submissions during the subsequent proceedings, in particular the oral proceedings, for whatever reason. Such a different evaluation was in itself neither a sufficient reason for admitting subsequently filed requests nor a fundamental procedural defect (see R 3/09). See also T 614/89 (in relation to Art. 11(2) RPBA 1980), T 2006/13.