|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Jarden Consumer Solutions (Europe) Ltd v SEB SA & Anor  EWCA Civ 1629 (17 December 2014)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1629
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARNOLD
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE BURNETT
SIR TIMOTHY LLOYD
| JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONS (EUROPE) LIMITED
|- and -
||Defendant/Part 20 Claimant/Respondent
|GROUPE SEB UK LIMITED
||Part 20 Claimant/Respondent
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Benet Brandreth (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP) for the Respondents
Hearing dates: 4th and 5th December 2014
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Vos:
i) "the main body 2" which is provided with a "lid 2C", forming a closed box in co-operation with "the side skirt 2B", and "the base 2A";
ii) "a receiver means 5" or receptacle, which is substantially sealed against liquids, designed to contain both the food and the fat;
iii) "a stirrer means 6" with "a blade 16" designed to move with respect to the receiver means, so as to mingle and stir the food and fat;
iv) "a main heater means 24" to generate a "flow of heat 25" orientated so as to strike the food directly.
Mr Nicholson's 3D CAD isometric model based on Figure 2 of the Patent, showing the lid in an open position
" The fryer 1 of the invention comprises, in conventional manner, a main body 2 intended to accommodate food to be fried (not shown)."
 As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, the main body 2 comprises a base 2A" and that "starting from the base 2A intended to form a footing for the fryer 1, and shaped to rest in a stable manner on a horizontal surface or support.
 Starting from the base 2A and at its periphery is a side skirt 2B formed, for example, from metal or from plastics material and forming the outer envelope of the fryer 1
 Advantageously, the main body 2 is provided with a lid 2C movably mounted between a closed position (shown in Figure 1) in which the lid 2C together with the main body 2 form a substantially sealed chamber around the food to be fried, and an open position (not shown) allowing food to be fried to be introduced into the main body 2. In other words, the lid 2C forms a closed box in cooperation with the side skirt 2B and the base 2A, which is preferably substantially hermetically sealed, allowing cooking to be carried out in a closed atmosphere. The substantially leaktight seal of the main body 2 by the lid 2C may, for example, be achieved using seals (not shown in the Figures).
 As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, the lid 2C is advantageously mounted on the main body 2 by a pivotal resilient connection produced by a hinge 3 provided with a torsion spring 3A so that the open position of the lid 2C is also a return position.
 Advantageously and as shown in Figure 1, the lid 2C may be provided with a transparent viewing zone 4 to allow frying progress inside the appliance to be viewed during the cooking cycle while the lid 2C is closed on the main body 2.
 In accordance with a major feature of the invention, the fryer 1 comprises, mounted in the main body 2, a means for automatically coating food to be fried with a film of fat by mingling said food with the fat.
 In other words, in contrast to prior art devices where the food is immersed in oil, the invention is based on the principle of frying carried out simply by coating the surface of the food with a thin layer of oil or any other suitable food grade fat. Thus, cooking is not carried out in a bath of oil, which implies the presence of a large quantity of fat surrounding all or part of the food, but because a small quantity of oil forms a thin substantially homogeneous coating on the surface of each piece of food placed in the main body 2."
" The fat-coated food may be heated in the fryer 1 using any known internal (i.e. integrated into the fryer 1) or external (i.e. independent of the fryer 1) heater means provided that these heater means are designed and dimensioned to provide excellent heat exchange with the food, which is all the more important since cooking is not carried out in an oil bath but simply with a coating of oil.
 Advantageously, the fryer 1 includes, mounted on the main body 2, a main heater means 24 provided to generate a flow of heat 25 which is orientated to strike at least part of the food in the main body 2 substantially directly.
 The term 'main heater means' denotes a heater means which can of itself provide at least most of the contribution of the heat for cooking. Preferably, the main heater means 24 is designed and arranged to supply all of the heat.
 The term flow of heat as used here denotes a directional stream of heat with a positively controlled dynamic character in contrast, for example, to a simple natural convection effect which can be obtained by purely static heating.
 Because the flow of heat 25 is directed to be exerted directly without an intervening medium (such as the bottom of a receptacle, for example) onto the food present in the receptacle 8, this contributes to excellent heat exchange and, by cooperating with the film of oil present on the food, cooks in a manner which is substantially equivalent to that obtained in an oil bath but without the disadvantages of a bath.
 Advantageously, the flow of heat 25 is a flow of hot air. However, the invention is not limited to a flow of hot air, and it is possible to envisage the flow of heat emanating from infrared heating, for example. Hot air heating is preferred, however, at least in the specific embodiment shown in the figures, since it produces better results compared with infrared heating, especially with food that has been cut up manually and has pieces of varying sizes and thicknesses.
 Advantageously, the flow of hot air 25 is directed substantially towards the stirrer means, in this case the blade 16.
 Advantageously, the hot air flow 25 is a recycled flow, i.e. the fryer 1 operates in a substantially closed environment, the air present inside the main body 2 being removed for heating and then propelled onto the food. Said propelled hot air cools in contact with the food and is removed again for reheating, and so on.
 Advantageously, the main heater means 24 includes a centrifugal fan 26 generating an air flow by taking air from the main body 2 via at least one inlet vent 27, preferably arranged laterally with respect to the receptacle 8, and then discharging that air via at least one outlet vent 28 in a ducting device 29 which opens in the direction of and above the food present in the main body 2.
 Advantageously, the main heater means 24 also includes a heater element 30 positioned in the air flow, preferably downstream of the outlet vent 28 in the direction of the flow, to transform the air flow into a flow of heat 25.
 Advantageously, the flow of heat meets the food at a glancing angle (i.e. less than 45°). This technical disposition means that the ducting device can be arranged laterally in the appliance. This lateral guidance of hot air means that the lid can be lighter and that handling the appliance is easier while proper cooking is continued. Cleaning is also facilitated, as well as removal or positioning the cooking receptacle 8.
 Advantageously, the assembly of the air circuit (which in particular comprises the fan 26, the heater element 30 and the ducting device 29) is designed and dimensioned so that the hot air flow 25 arrives at the food contained in the receptacle 8 at a speed which is substantially above 2 meters per second (m/s), preferably substantially 3 m/s or more ...
 Advantageously, the fryer 1 of the invention forms, when operating (i.e. when the lid 2C is closed), a substantially closed cooking chamber around the receiver means 5, i.e. preferably closed in a sealed manner, said chamber preferably being provided with a calibrated steam-releasing means (not shown).
 This measure can control the humidity prevailing in the chamber.
 To this end, the calibrated steam-releasing means are dimensioned so that:
● pressure cooking is avoided; this would occur if the chamber were to be completely sealed and could cause the fries to break up; and
● economic energy consumption is encouraged, since if too much steam escapes, this would result in a major dissipation of energy, which would mean that the heater element 30 would have to be over-dimensioned.
 Preferably, the calibrated steam-releasing means comprises a venting orifice (not shown), preferably disposed close to the inlet vent 27 of the fan 26, which allows controlled continuous evacuation of steam throughout the cooking cycle and controlled renewal of the air inside the chamber.
 Advantageously, the appliance of the invention 5 may include an orifice for filling the storage means 34 when the lid 2C closes the main body 2. This make-up orifice, which may be extended by a conduit is, for example, provided in the lid 2C or, more generally, in the main body 2. "
"1.[A] Dry fryer comprising:
[B] a receiver means designed to contain both food and fat;
[C] a stirrer means for stirring food contained in the receiver means,
[D] the receiver means and the stirrer means being designed to be moved with respect to each other,
characterised in that
[E] the receiver means is removably mounted inside a main body
[F] and in that the receiver means and the stirrer means are designed to be moved with respect to each other inside the main body,
[G] for automatically coating said food with a film of fat by mingling said food with fat inside said receiver means.
2.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 1,
characterised in that
[B] it forms , when operating, a substantially closed cooking chamber.
3.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 1 or 2
characterised in that
[B] the main body is provided with a lid movably mounted between
[C] a closed position in which the lid together with the main body form a substantially sealed chamber around the food to be fried
[D] and an open position allowing food to be fried to be introduced into the main body.
4. Dry fryer according to claim 3
characterised in that
it comprises a hinge for connecting the lid and the main body.
8.[A] Dry fryer according to any one of claims 1 to 6
characterised in that
[B] the stirrer means is mounted in a position that is stationary relative to the main body
[C] while the receiver means is mounted in rotation relative to both the main body and the stirrer means,
[D] and is functionally connected to a motor means to be driven in rotation thereby.
9.[A] Dry fryer according to any one of claims 1 to 8
characterised in that
[B] it comprises, mounted on the main body,
[C] a main heater means by itself providing at least most of the contribution of the heat for cooking.
10.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 9
characterised in that
[B] said main heater means is designed to generate a flow of heat
[C] orientated so as to strike substantially directly at least a portion of the food.
11.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 9 or 10
characterised in that
[B] the main heater means is designed to generate a flow of heat above the receiver means.
12.[A] Dry fryer according to any one of claims 9 to 11
characterised in that
[B] the main heater means is designed and arranged to supply all of the heat for cooking.
13.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 10
characterised in that
[B] the flow of heat is either a flow of hot air or a flow of heat emanating from infrared heating.
14.[A] Dry fryer according to claim 13
characterised in that
[B] the main heater means comprises a fan generating a flow of air
[C] by sucking air from the main body via at least one inlet vent and discharging it via at least one outlet vent
[C] into a ducting device opening in a direction above the food present in the main body
[D] the main heater means also comprising a heater element positioned in the air flow, downstream from the outlet vent
[E] to transform the air flow into a flow of heat."
"The container (1) resembles a pan or pot, preferably Teflon-coated on the inside, i.e., a vessel coated with tetrafluorethylene to contain the food being cooked. In use, it is placed on a hotplate (2) with several kilowatts of heating power. For easy handling of the vessel, two handles (3, 3) are provided. In the vessel are rotating scrapers (4, 4), fastened to the shaft (5) rotating at several revolutions per minute, which slide directly on the bottom of the vessel (1), somewhat slanting. These scrapers (4, 4) move the food (13) both in the radial direction (arrows) and also vertically. The shaft (5), in turn, is turned by a reduction gearing (6), which is placed in rotation by the motor (7). As the figure shows, two pinions are provided in order to reduce appropriately the high speed of the motor (7). Directly located on the shaft of the motor (7) are the blades of a fan (8), which draws in fresh air from a gap between the motor flange and the housing, heats it by a heating element (9), and transports it to the surface of the food being cooked (arrow direction 1), so as to blow away the steam arising there. The steam-saturated air escapes through openings, which as shown in Fig. 1b are located between the supporting and holding parts (10, 10) of the top structure, and motor (7), fan (8) and reduction gearing (6)."
"The device is placed on the hotplate (2), where its bottom is heated. After adding grease, such as butter or bacon fat, if required, the crumbly food is added. In the example, this can be pieces of potato around a cubic centimeter in size, prepared from raw potatoes. At the same time, after inserting the plug (11) into the wall outlet, motor, fan and scraper are placed in motion and the heating element (9) starts to glow. The food is now moved radially and also lifted constantly from the bottom of the vessel, so that different parts always arrive at the heated bottom. At the same time, thanks to the fan (8), the air heated by the heating element (9) begins to flow over the material, both heating it and removing the escaping steam from it. The heating of the food can also be further promoted by mounting radiant heaters on the lid "
"1.) Method for cooking of crumbly or semisolid foods (potatoes, meat balls, egg dishes, toast and so on) while supplying the cooking heat from heated top or bottom layers, characterized in that food pieces are constantly mechanically tossed during the cooking process and, if desired, the resulting steam is also removed from them.
2.) Device to carry out the method per claim 1, characterized in that a panlike or potlike vessel, preferably coated with Teflon on the inside, is provided with rotating scrapers, lifters, or tossing elements and a fan.
5.) Device according to claim 1 and 2, characterized in that heating elements are provided in the air stream.
6.) Device according to one of the preceding claims, characterized in that electric radiant heaters are arranged in the lower part of the top piece supporting the drive elements."
The law on construction and on references to numerals in the patent
"The task for the court is to determine what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to have been using the language of the claim to mean. An abbreviated version of [the principles] is as follows:
(i) The first overarching principle is that contained in Article 69 of the European Patent Convention.
(ii) Article 69 says that the extent of protection is determined by the claims. It goes on to say that the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. In short the claims are to be construed in context.
(iii) It follows that the claims are to be construed purposively - the inventor's purpose being ascertained from the description and drawings.
(iv) It further follows that the claims must not be construed as if they stood alone - the drawings and description only being used to resolve any ambiguity. Purpose is vital to the construction of claims.
(v) When ascertaining the inventor's purpose, it must be remembered that he may have several purposes depending on the level of generality of his invention. Typically, for instance, an inventor may have one, generally more than one, specific embodiment as well as a generalised concept. But there is no presumption that the patentee necessarily intended the widest possible meaning consistent with his purpose be given to the words that he used: purpose and meaning are different.
(vi) Thus purpose is not the be-all and end-all. One is still at the end of the day concerned with the meaning of the language used. Hence the other extreme of the Protocol - a mere guideline - is also ruled out by Article 69 itself. It is the terms of the claims which delineate the patentee's territory.
(vii) It follows that if the patentee has included what is obviously a deliberate limitation in his claims, it must have a meaning. One cannot disregard obviously intentional elements.
(viii) It also follows that where a patentee has used a word or phrase which, acontextually, might have a particular meaning (narrow or wide) it does not necessarily have that meaning in context.
(ix) It further follows that there is no general 'doctrine of equivalents.'
(x) On the other hand purposive construction can lead to the conclusion that a technically trivial or minor difference between an element of a claim and the corresponding element of the alleged infringement nonetheless falls within the meaning of the element when read purposively. This is not because there is a doctrine of equivalents: it is because that is the fair way to read the claim in context.
(xi) Finally purposive construction leads one to eschew the kind of meticulous verbal analysis which lawyers are too often tempted by their training to indulge."
"In particular, we do not think that numerals should influence the construction of the claim at all they do not illustrate whether the inventor intended a wide or narrow meaning. The patentee is told by the rule that if he puts numerals into his claim they will not be used to limit it. If the court subsequently pays attention to the numbers to limit the claim that is simply not fair. And patentees would wisely refrain from inserting numbers in case they were used against them. That is not to say that numbers are pointless. They help a real reader orient himself at the stage when is trying to get the general notion of what the patent is about. He can see where in the specific embodiment a particular claim element is, but no more. Once one comes to construe the claim, it must be construed as if the numbers were not part of it. To give an analogy, the numbers help you get the map the right way up, they do not help you read it to find out exactly where you are."
The judge's reasons
i) It was clear from the general manner in which the embodiments were described in the specification that the lid was part of, albeit an optional and distinct part of, the main body, since the specification describes the main body 2 as having three parts: a base 2A, a side skirt 2B and a lid 2C, and uses the same numbering scheme to describe a number of other assemblies.
ii) A number of passages in the specification specifically indicate that the lid is regarded as part of the main body when present including (a) the statement in paragraph 34 that "the main body is provided with a lid 2C", and (b) the statement in paragraph 120 that the make-up orifice is "provided in the lid 2C or, more generally, in the main body 2".
iii) It was unsurprising that the Patent treated the lid as both separate from and as part of the main body, since it was commonplace for a whole to comprise parts which were both part of the whole and yet distinct, such as a teapot and its lid and a human body and its arms and legs.
iv) The specification disclosed the part of the main heater means located in the lid, since the main heater means was described at paragraph 90 as consisting of the complete hot air system for the cooking, including the ducting device 29 in the lid, and Figure 2 showed the main heater means 24 as being in the lid, and the flow of heat 25 coming from the ducting device in the lid.
v) This reasoning did not contravene the principle stated by Jacob LJ in paragraph 17 of Virgin Atlantic, because the reference numerals in the claim were not being used to construe the claim, and certainly not to limit the scope of the claim. Instead, the reasoning was taking proper account of the system of numbering used in the specification, and the message which that conveys about the relationship between the respective parts.
vi) Since claim 9 was dependent on each of claims 1-8, the skilled reader would understand that the reference to "main body" in integer 9[B] was in contradistinction to the receiver means and the stirrer means rather than in contradistinction to the lid.
vii) There was force in the argument that the technical purpose of mounting the main heater means in the main body rather than the lid was to enable the lid to be lighter, to allow for easier handling of the appliance, and to make it safer. But the argument was not decisive, because the specification does not expressly link the lightness of the lid with mounting the main heater means on the main body, and the skilled team would appreciate that the extent of the advantage depended on factors such as the weight of the heater and the fan, and that achieving the directional flow of heat which is the subject of claim 10 was more important to the invention and was as well, if not better achieved, by mounting the main heater means in the lid.
i) Paragraph 109 shows that the difference between claims 2 and 3 is not the difference between "closed" and "sealed" but in the fact that claim 3 requires the main body and lid in its closed position to form the chamber.
ii) The skilled team would understand that the purpose of the chamber being "substantially sealed" under claim 3 was to ensure that the flow of heat could be recycled within the chamber, but steam could be released. Any other construction would make it a pressure cooker. The specification does not suggest that claim 3 was to be limited to the lid and main body forming a completely sealed chamber with steam venting elsewhere.
iii) There was no reason to suppose that the patentee intended to exclude an arrangement with a small gap between the lid and the main body which both allows heat to be recycled and steam to be released.
i) The top structure of the vessel in Vogt was open between the supporting and the holding parts. In other words, there was no sealed or even partially sealed chamber.
ii) Vogt did not clearly disclose that its top structure was removable.
iii) Vogt discloses that the top heating element heats the food, and thus contributes to an unspecified extent to cooking it.
iv) Whilst it was common ground that the main heating means in the disclosed embodiment in Vogt was the external hotplate, the radiant heaters possibly mounted in the lid were, if present, a subsidiary heat supply and could not be the main heating means.
i) The skilled person would not regard Vogt as a worthwhile starting point for development at all, because it was 33 years old in 2004, from a different technological era, unclear and lacking in detail and somewhat eccentric. Although Jarden's expert, Mr Glucksman, had not accepted that the skilled team would put Vogt to one side, he did accept that consumers would not accept a stove-top device which was connected to the mains.
ii) It was not obvious for the skilled team to make the substantial changes needed to arrive at a fryer falling within claim 10: (i) to provide a cool touch outer wall forming a main body with a removable mounted receptacle within it (not in claim 1), (ii) to provide a hinged lid forming a substantially sealed chamber with the main body when closed (not in claim 3 and contrary to Vogt's teaching, which is about steam release), and (iii) to rotate the bowl rather than the stirrer (not in claim 8, and requiring substantial re-design).
iii) It would not be obvious either to dispense with Vogt's external hotplate and rely instead on the radiant heaters in the lid as the main heater means. As SEB's expert, Mr Nicholson, said, this would be contrary to Vogt's teaching, and the skilled team would find it simpler to design a fryer from scratch. Since it was not alleged that claim 10 was obvious over common general knowledge alone, obviousness over Vogt was pure hindsight.
Jarden's submissions on the construction issue
i) The use of the word "main" to describe "body" makes it clear in paragraph 31 and in claim 1 that it denotes the central part of the fryer rather than optional parts or extremities. Indeed, claim 1 could even include an open fryer without a lid at all, and claims 3 and 4 could include a fully detachable lid. The analogy with the human body or the teapot is inapt because the term is "main body", not just "body".
ii) The concept of the main heater means is not introduced until claim 9, and that claim and paragraph 83 refer to a main heater means mounted on the main body. That main body is referred to in paragraphs 2 and 31 as "a main body intended to accommodate food" for frying within it.
iii) Various parts of the specification indicate that the lid is separate from the main body including (a) paragraph 35 that refers to the lid being "mounted on the main body" (as paragraphs 53, 72, 73 and 83 refer to other components being similarly mounted on the main body), (b) the fact that each component mentioned in the specification has its own separate function, (c) paragraph 36 refers to a viewing zone on the lid allowing frying progress to be viewed "while the lid is closed on the main body", (d) paragraph 97 refers to the ducting device being mounted in the lid, (e) paragraphs 113 and 116-120 refer to a fat storage means being functionally connected to the lid, and removably mounted relative to the main body, for filling it with fat "when the lid 2C closes the main body 2", and a conduit which may be "provided in the lid 2C or, more generally, in the main body 2".
iv) The technical purposes of creating a lighter lid and a safer appliance by having the heater in the main body would have been obvious to the skilled reader.
v) The judge was wrong to suggest that he was using the numbers in the specification rather than the numbers in the claims to construe the claims because that approach would entirely negate the purpose of Rule 43(7) as explained in Virgin Atlantic. The judge's construction cannot stand without the use that he made of the numerals. In any event the fact that the main body is numbered 2 and the lid is numbered 2C does not indicate that one encompasses the other, but rather that they share a functional relationship, namely forming a substantially sealed cooking chamber (paragraph 34).
vi) The Patent uses language to show that one part "comprises" another where it means to do so. For example, paragraph 32 says that the main body "comprises" a base. This is to be contrasted with paragraph 34 which says that the main body is "provided with" a lid.
vii) The claims exclude the mounting of the main heater means on the stirring means or on the receiver means, but not, according to the judge, on the lid. The judge's construction makes little sense of claims 3 and 4 that refer to the "lid together with the main body" and "a hinge for connecting the lid and the main body", and claim 9 that refers to a main heater means mounted on the main body.
viii) The judge was wrong to think that the heater in the lid would be a better arrangement because of the requirement for a directional flow of heat. The requirements of claim 10 cannot be imported into claim 9 so as to change its meaning.
ix) The judge was wrong to accept SEB's submission that all or part of the main heater means was in the lid. It was not. Only the ducting device was in the lid, which is not part of the main heater means, but the conduit through which the hot air generated by the main heater means passes.
x) Article 69 of the EPC and its Protocol requires fair protection for a patentee and reasonable certainty for third parties. The judge's construction ignores the need for such certainty since it cuts across the plain language of the claims.
xi) Finally, Jarden contends that SEB itself did not think to argue that the heater claims were infringed for some 18 months after the dispute began despite being specifically asked which specific claims were allegedly infringed. This, Jarden maintains, shows the artificiality of SEB's case on infringement.
SEB's submissions on the construction issue
Discussion on the construction issue
Discussion on whether claims 10, 11, 13 and 15 were obvious over Vogt
i) The judge's decision that the skilled person would have disregarded Vogt was his own point and contrary to the evidence before him.
ii) The judge wrongly construed claim 9 of the Patent as requiring that the principal or only heaters were mounted on the main body (including the lid), which led him to think, in error, that Vogt would have to be adapted so as to remove the hotplate as a source of heat entirely.
iii) The judge considered the validity of claim 10 on its narrowest claim dependency, not as he should have done, on its widest. This led him to fail to consider as he should have done applying the tests in Pozzoli v. BDMO  FSR 37 the actual differences between the later claims of the Patent and Vogt, and whether they were steps requiring invention, which they were not.
iv) Had the judge considered the obviousness of claim 10 dependent on just claims 1 and 9 (as he ought to have done), he would have concluded that:-
a) the main body housing the receptacle was (as he had himself found at paragraph 42) common general knowledge to create cool touch exterior;
b) the receptacle being removably mounted within the main body was also common general knowledge by 2004 (as he had also found at paragraph 43);
c) the "main heater means" of claim 9 was present in Vogt, which teaches a heating element in the lid which heats and cooks the food, and can be supplemented by radiant heaters. The hotplate in Vogt did not need to be removed. Vogt teaches "the supply of cooking heat from the top or bottom";
d) claims 11, 13 and 15 add no invention.
v) Had the judge considered the obviousness of claim 10 dependent on claim 3 alone (as he ought to have done), he would have concluded that:-
a) Hinged lids were entirely standard by 2004 and required no invention;
b) Mr Nicholson had been right to say that Vogt could be modified to make the lid removable;
c) The judge ought to have construed Vogt as showing a covered lid so as to enable the hot air to recycle with steam openings located between the holding parts; and
d) A closed lid was not contrary to the teaching in Vogt as understood by the skilled team who would know that venting of steam was needed.
vi) Finally, Jarden contend that the judge failed to consider the impact on infringement if features of the other sub-claims were written into claim 10. The judge's holding that the claim 3's reference to a substantially sealed chamber was to a fryer that is sufficiently closed to enable the flow of heat to be recycled and steam to be released is to rewrite the claim. The judge's finding ignored the numerous references in paragraphs 19 and 34 to a "substantially hermetically sealed" chamber and to a "substantially leaktight seal of the main body by the lid" and to the use of seals and to the chamber being "closed in a sealed manner". The Halo fryer did not infringe claim 3 as it has a gap between the main body and the lid.
Lord Justice Burnett:
Sir Timothy Lloyd: