In T 395/12 the appeal was also held inadmissible; the applicant's only statement that directly addressed the decision under appeal was that the examining division was "wrong", with no explanation why. Decisions T 213/85 (OJ 1987, 482) and T 95/10 clarify that the appeal procedure is not a mere continuation of the examination procedure (in accordance with decisions G 10/91, OJ 1993, 420; G 9/92 date: 1994-07-14, OJ 1994, 875 and G 4/93, OJ 1994, 875), but separate therefrom. Where the applicant in the grounds of appeal repeats its arguments set out during the examination phase without taking into account the decision under appeal, it mistakes the function of the boards of appeal; they are not a second go at the examination procedure, but are meant to review decisions made by the examining divisions, based on the objections raised against the decision in the grounds of appeal, which must therefore relate to the reasons on which the decision under appeal is based. The appeal had also to be considered inadmissible because the grounds failed to deal with all the reasons the examination division advanced for refusing the application. According to T 1045/02, the grounds of appeal must deal with all those reasons on which the decision under appeal is based. This is consistent with the requirement of Art. 12(2) RPBA 2007, according to which, "The statement of grounds of appeal and the reply shall contain a party's complete case". See also T 473/09, where the appeal was also held inadmissible as the grounds failed to deal with all the reasons for refusing the application and T 918/17.

However, according to the board in T 1045/02, a statement of grounds failed to meet the minimum requirements if it dealt with only one of several grounds for refusal. In T 1407/17 the board found that the grounds of appeal gave no indication of why the ground for refusal under Art. 56 EPC was unfounded. One of the three independent grounds for refusal that had led to the appealed decision had therefore not been addressed.