Patent decision

BL number

O/062/01

Concerning rights in

EP(UK) 0071308

Hearing Officer

Mr P Hayward

Decision date

5 February 2001

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

BSH Bosch and Siemens Hausgerate GmbH v Whirlpool Europe BV

Provisions discussed

PA 1977 section 72

Keywords

Inventive step, Novelty, Revocation

Related Decisions

None

Summary

EP0071308 concerns the detection of imbalance in a washing machine drum before it is accelerated to spin speed in order to avoid damaging vibration. The drum is slowly accelerated to an intermediate speed before spinning so as to distribute the clothes evenly, and while it is rotated at the intermediate speed, variations in the speed are monitored to detect imbalance.

BSH sought revocation on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, primarily in the light of prior publication in patent specification DE1266691. DE1266691 discloses the same pattern of speed changes and monitoring of imbalance, but the embodiment describes the detection of variations in motor current rather than speed to indicate imbalance. However, the description and claims of DE1266691 also contain generalising wording that imbalance can be detected by measuring a 'time varying feature of the drum and/or motor' other than motor current. The hearing officer held that DE1266691 did not anticipate the claims of EP0071308 since it contained no express teaching of speed measurement. However, he considered that the skilled person would have appreciated as a matter of general knowledge that it was known to use speed measurement and speed control of washing machine drums, and he held in the light of the disclosure of DE1266691, that EP0071308 lacked inventive step since it would not have required any degree of invention to appreciate that speed variations could have been used instead of motor current variations for the detection of imbalance. EP(UK)0071308 was ordered to be revoked unless the specification was amended to the satisfaction of the comptroller.

The parties produced a number of expert witnesses. The hearing officer considered that none of their evidence was of much help, in some cases due to their lack of appropriate expertise or because they were not credible as impartial experts. He referred to Ikarian Reefer [1993] FSR 563 in which it was made clear that the evidence of an expert witness should be 'the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of the litigation.' and should provide 'independent assistance to the court by way of objective, unbiassed opinion in relation to matters within his expertise'.