A: Somewhere in 1200
something like,
Board may remand for other purposes other than further consideration of rejection, which includes:
whether to consider IDS, Amend., Affi. after sending appeal brief.
and also make a decision on whether the grouping rejection is proper.

When doing a search of Chapter 1200, you can search “as a group”, and receive several relevant hits which are closely related to “stand or fall together”

From 1205.02:
Each ground of rejection must be treated under a separate heading. For each ground of rejection applying to two or more claims, the claims may be argued separately or as a group. When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. The failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together constitutes a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately. See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1384, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Any claim argued separately should be placed under a subheading identifying the claim by number. Claims argued as a group should be placed under a subheading identifying the claims by number.

An examiner may enter a new ground of rejection in the examiner’s supplemental answer, except when a supplemental answer is written in response to a remand by the board (which is FALSE–because an examiner may NOT enter a new ground of rejection in the examiner’s answer).

am i understanding this wrongly or this article here is misleading or outdated???