Case No. IP-2019-000196

102.It was not in dispute that much of the invention claimed in claim 45 was disclosed by Professor Tehrani’s earlier patent, US 268 and that the latter is incorporated by reference into the teaching of the Patent. The new disclosure in the Patent said to be inventive is claimed in integer 45H: three sets of data, namely (a) measured oxygen level, (b) measured carbon dioxide level and ( c) respiratory elastance and airway resistance, are used to determine I:E for a next breath of the patient.103.Professor Rees’ evidence was that at the priority date the skilled person would have known that a system for controlling ventilation could be used with the Waisel system and that this would have served to determine I:E for a next breath (within the meaning of that term as I have found it to be above) by the use of the three sets of data (a), (b) and (c) mentioned above. Setting the I:E ratio would have been a necessary part of controlling a mechanical ventilator and it would have been obvious to do this by means of known ventilator control systems available at the priority date.104.Professor Tehrani said that it was not obvious to combine a known ventilator control with the Waisel system in that way. She explained this in her first report (original bold lettering):“98. Look up tables such as the table used in PEFIOS (Figure 1 of Waisel 1995 shown in paragraph 93) are mainly designed for manual use. When these tables are implemented in a computer, the resulting software is a semi-manual, trial and error tool for intermittent adjustment of parameters. Such a system is profoundly different from a continuous closed-loop control system.