This decision deals with the following request for correction of the minutes of the oral proceedings (OPs) before the Board of appeal, filed on July 12, 2012:
The Board explained that it did not see any reason to correct the minutes.
The opponent replied as follows, on September 19, 2012:
Here is what the Board had to say on that matter:
*** Translation of the German original ***
 Contrary to the opinion of the respondent/opponent 3, as far as the contents of minutes of OPs are concerned, the relevant legal basis is exclusively R 124(1). Accordingly the minutes shall inter alia contain the legally relevant (rechtserheblich ; NB: R 124 in its English version has only “relevant”) statements made by the parties.
 In the present context, the decisions of the Board, the operative part (Tenor) of which is incorporated into the minutes of the OPs, and the reasons of which are to be provided later on, are also [considered to be] legally relevant. However, in application of R 124(1) it is not required, nor is it customary in proceedings before the Board of appeal of the EPO, to introduce into the minutes that the Board has expressed a provisional opinion on [compliance with] the patentability requirements before announcing the decision.
 When, as here, the decision orders the impugned decision to be set aside and the case to be remitted to the first instance for further processing, the indication of the set of claims and the reasons, why the Board is of the opinion that this set of claims, which forms the basis for the further decision of the first instance, does indeed comply with certain requirements governing patents (Patentierungs-voraussetzungen) (such as A 123(2) in the present case), are not given in the order of the decision or in the minutes of the proceedings but in the reasons for the decision. This way of proceeding corresponds to the requirement that the operative part of the decision (Entscheidungsformel) be concise.
 Moreover, the operative part given in the minutes exactly corresponds to the text […] read out by the chairman of the Board during the OPs after the factual debate had been closed.
 Insofar as the respondent/opponent 3, in its letter dated September 19, 2012, justifying the request for correction of the minutes, refers to a passage annexed to the summons to OPs and dated March 20, 2012, this [submission] cannot be successful because, as clearly and unambiguously stated at the beginning of the communication, this is a provisional and non-binding opinion the purpose of which is to prepare the OPs. […]
The request for correction of the minutes of the OPs is dismissed.
Should you wish to download the whole decision (in German), just click here.
The file wrapper can be found here.