The European Patent EP 2 090 050 B1 had been attacked by various oppositions, inter alia under the opposition ground of Art. 100(a) EPC (lack of novelty/inventive step). One of the documents, E19, cited by the Opponents appeared to be a document under Art. 54(3) EPC. That document E19 claimed 8 (!) priorities with filing dates before and after the priority date of the opposed patent. The Opponents argued that one of the priorities having a filing date before the priority date of the opposed patent would be valid for the relevant subject-matter of the opposed patent, and that E19 would thus be novelty destroying . Document E19, however, described a first and a second embodiment. Only the second embodiment was allegedly novelty destroying, whereas the first embodiment was not. Thorough examination of the one allegedly valid priority of E19 revealed that this priority only disclosed the first embodiment, but not the second embodiment. The Board of Appeal further noted that the first embodiment of E19 appears to be an equivalent of the second embodiment of E19, but that a priority claim does not extend to equivalents of an embodiment described in a priority document (cf. BoA T 685/90). The Board of Appeal thus came to the conclusion that E19 was not novelty destroying.