T 2193/17 - Steam ironing device with non-adjustable temperature

 Key points

• From the present Board decision, I learned how my own steam ironing device works. Well, perhaps not quite, but that may be because the decision in this opposition case only deals with Art.100(c) / Article 123(2). 
• First, the background, in the patent application: “It is a well known fact that an ironing temperature, i.e. the temperature to which an item that is being ironed is heated during the ironing process, is to be chosen in dependence of the type of fabric of the item in order to obtain optimal ironing results. For example, in case the item is made of cotton, the ironing temperature may be relatively high, e.g. around 175°C, whereas when the item to be ironed is made of polyamide or elastane, the ironing temperature should be much lower, e.g. about 95°C, so as to avoid scorching of the item.”
• To cite a news article of 1 November 2011, in machine translation: “The peculiarity of the [new] PerfectCare steam generator is that it is no longer fitted with a thermostat and so you can switch from a delicate fabric to a thick cotton without having to adjust anything. ... Optimal Temp technology is an innovation from Philips. It allows you to iron any type of fabric without having to worry about the temperature. ...  A lot was said about this machine when it was released, in particular that it was "intelligent", able to recognize the type of fabric she was ironing and adapt accordingly. When I spoke about it with one of his competitors, he told me that he had completely dissected the plant to understand how it works and that if it was able to work on any type of tissue it is because it was set to a single temperature that all fabrics can withstand.”
• The patent application “The ironing device according to the present invention is based on research that, quite surprisingly and contrary to popular belief, has revealed that satisfactory ironing results for diverse fabric types may be achieved at universal temperature and steam settings. To this end, the ironing device according to the present invention combines a relatively low, manually non-adjustable soleplate temperature with a relatively high minimum steam rate”.
• Claim 1 as granted specifies essentially that the steam ironing device has a soleplate with non-adjustable temperature and a steam generator with a controller to control steam settings to "a non-user-adjustable [steam] temperature in the range of 100-150°C at a time-averaged steam rate of at least 50 grams/minute".
• The Board, on the gist of the Article 123(2) issue: “contrary to the opinion of the [patentee], it is evident that the sentence [in the application as filed stating that] '... the steam settings, e.g. the steam rate and steam temperature, may also be non-user adjustable' [] is simply not a direct and unambiguous disclosure of just the steam temperature being non-user-adjustable.” (emphasis added) (with extensive further analysis in the complete decision of the Board).
• The Board: “A skilled person reading the application would indeed notice that user-adjustability of steam temperature is never disclosed. However, this does not result in their necessarily regarding the steam temperature as therefore being non-user-adjustable. The non-user-adjustability is not a direct and unambiguous consequence of the lack of a disclosure of user-adjustability. Rather, neither is disclosed, even if the scope of the disclosure covers both possibilities. Consequently, the requisite direct and unambiguous disclosure of non-user-adjustable steam temperature is not disclosed in the application as filed.”
• It seems that three German "Abzweigung" utility models were filed during the opposition proceedings. 
• The utility models were filed during the opposition appeal stage, and after an ex parte injunction had been issued against an (alleged) infringer in Germany and a few months before the intervention by said (alleged) infringer; the intervention was subsequently withdrawn.
• The intervention, made during the opposition appeal, was withdrawn. Nevertheless, the former intervener is indicated on the first page of the decision as Party as of right. I'm not sure if this is correct.

T 2193/17 - link after jump (not the decision text); as well as paragraphs from the PCT application explaining the invention:

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t172193eu1.html 

decision text omitted

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DWO2012085746A1

From the patent application WO2012085746A1:

" It is a well known fact that an ironing temperature, i.e. the temperature to which an item that is being ironed is heated during the ironing process, is to be chosen in dependence of the type of fabric of the item in order to obtain optimal ironing results. For example, in case the item is made of cotton, the ironing temperature may be relatively high, e.g. around 175°C, whereas when the item to be ironed is made of polyamide or elastane, the ironing temperature should be much lower, e.g. about 95°C, so as to avoid scorching of the item."

" virtually all contemporary domestic (steam) irons come equipped with a heatable soleplate whose temperature is manually adjustable within a range of about 70-210°C. To properly iron a certain fabric with such an iron, the user is expected to be aware of the thermal properties thereof, or at least of the fabric type and/or recommended temperature settings, and to adjust the soleplate temperature of the iron in accordance therewith before he starts to iron the respective textile. Disregarding the recommended soleplate temperature setting may lead to unsatisfactory ironing results, and even thermal damage to the ironed material if the soleplate temperature inadvertently exceeds the maximum recommended temperature."

" The ironing device according to the present invention is based on research that, quite surprisingly and contrary to popular belief, has revealed that satisfactory ironing results for diverse fabric types may be achieved at universal temperature and steam settings. To this end, the ironing device according to the present invention combines a relatively low, manually non-adjustable soleplate temperature with a relatively high minimum steam rate."

" The lower boundary of the soleplate temperature range, 105°C, is chosen sufficiently high to avoid condensation of steam as it is emitted from the at least one steam outlet opening in the soleplate. Condensation is preferably avoided since it may result in temporary wet stains due to dripping and/or cause water spitting. The upper boundary, 145°C, is selected from the perspective of fabric safety and is sufficiently low to prevent scorching or other damage of delicate items. In particular for items with a one-dot temperature indication the safety of the upper temperature boundary, which may fall outside of the one-dot temperature range (cf. Table 1), is warranted by the constant emission of a substantial steam flow from the soleplate. The temperature range of (125±20)°C may be narrowed to (125±10)°C to enhance the above effects and make the iron's behavior more robust and safe in non-standard ironing conditions (for example involving thick, cold and thermally conductive items that may temporarily draw the soleplate temperature down to about 100°C). The temperature of 125°C at the center of these ranges has been found to provide for good results, as will be discussed in more detail below."