In R 4/11 the Enlarged Board held that in order for the decision to comply with Art. 113 EPC it was sufficient that the party concerned had an adequate opportunity to present its point of view to the board before a decision was taken, that the board considered the arguments presented by the party and that the decision was based on a line of reasoning that could be said to have been in the proceedings (see also R 11/12, R 18/12). Several further cases in which the petitioner claimed that the decision under review took it by surprise have been rejected by the Enlarged Board:

In R 7/12 the Enlarged Board found that the argument in question was "part of the appeal proceedings". See also R 8/09 in which the Enlarged Board found that the document in question "formed part of the debate".

In R 9/14 the Enlarged Board stated that it was sufficient that the "relevance [of a factor] became clear during the proceedings".

In R 22/10 the Enlarged Board found that the decision did "not contain any reasons which could not be objectively foreseen".

In R 8/13 of 15 September 2015 date: 2015-09-15 the Enlarged Board held that "a representative with normal experience and training could foresee what the crucial issues were for the board".