On the document count
I could easily imagine some earlier points in the meeting simply having additional documents added, which then shifted the numbering of the documents, in order to preserve a progression from 1-X instead of going 1-15, then 22-26, then 16-21.
So if that's the only evidence of personal tampering - in this particular instance - then I find it somewhat lacking.
That being said, I hope Battistelli is punished and the EPO brought back to some semblance of sanity.
Also I can't help wondering what's in document 18 (now 23), since it seems like it must be relevant to the case, but apparently isn't? Perhaps it's a sign that the linear progression I speak of above isn't actually relevant...
Biting the hand that feeds IT
