Patent decision

BL number

O/112/16

Concerning rights in

GB1419116.7 and GB1419110.0

Hearing Officer

Dr J E Porter

Decision date

11 January 2016

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Silixa Ltd

Provisions discussed

Section 1(1)(b)

Keywords

Inventive step

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The applications concern distributed acoustic sensor (“DAS”) systems which use an optical fibre to determine acoustic signals by measuring properties of backscattered or reflected light from along the fibre. Acoustic signals change the strain in the fibre and cause modulations in the backscattered or reflected light. These effects are measured to determine the acoustic signal at different positions along the length of the fibre. The invention claimed in GB1419116.7 involves using the detected acoustic signals to monitor fluid flow in a pipe by determining the speed of sound in the fluid. In GB1419110.0, the claimed invention is a DAS system used to monitor the position of an object by measuring the time of flight of acoustic signals received from acoustic reference sources.

The prior art documents showed it was known to measure fluid flow in a pipe by determining the speed of sound, and to monitor position by measuring the time of flight of acoustic reference signals. However, the prior art systems used arrays of point sensors to perform the measurements rather than a DAS system as in the claimed inventions. A further prior art document disclosed measuring acoustic signals in a fluid using a DAS system, but there was no disclosure of using the system to obtain the claimed parameters.

The Hearing Officer first considered the examiner’s argument that the claims of both applications relate to a collocation of features which do not interact synergistically. On finding that the claimed steps of detecting the acoustic signals and using those signals to determine the desired parameters cannot be regarded as independent and separate, he concluded that the claims do not relate to a mere collocation of known features. He therefore went on to apply the Windsurfing/Pozzoli test to each of the claimed inventions as a whole. On the balance of probabilities he found that, due to the various different technical complexities which arise from using a DAS system as opposed to point sensors, the skilled person would not find it obvious to combine the disclosures of prior art point sensor systems with the previously disclosed DAS system to arrive at the claimed inventions. He therefore found the claims of both applications to be inventive in light of the prior art and remitted the applications to the examiner for consideration of any outstanding matters.