In T 142/96 the practice of re-opening examination after rectification was held to be contrary to the principle of procedural economy underlying Art. 109 EPC 1973 and so constituted a substantial procedural violation.

In T 2247/09 the examining division had granted interlocutory revision, then proceeded with the examination of the new subject-matter put forward with the appeal, before refusing the application again in its second decision. The appellant claimed that he had had to pay two appeal fees in order to have the claims considered by a board of appeal. The board noted that the reasons given in the examination division's second decision differed from those given in its first decision. Moreover, the decision to grant interlocutory revision had been correct because the applicant's new request had removed the reasons for the decision under appeal. The mere fact that the further examination again resulted in the refusal of the application did not constitute a substantial procedural violation.