In T 777/97, only two of the members of the opposition division had signed the contested decision refusing a request for correction, one purporting to sign on behalf of the absent chairman. According to the board, decisions T 390/86 and T 243/87 (see in this chapter III.K.1.3.2) were not directly applicable, because the case in hand concerned a decision taken in a written procedure on the basis of the evidence on file, whereas those two cases had been concerned with the opposition divisions' composition during the oral proceedings at which the decision was announced, in connection with the requirement that the subsequent written decisions giving the reasons for those oral decisions be signed by the same members. The conclusions reached in T 243/87 could nevertheless be applied by analogy. It went without saying that only those members who had taken the decision could decide on a request for its correction, but if one of the three members of the decision-making department was absent (here: the chairman), one of the others (here: the first examiner) could sign on that absent member's behalf.