Patent decision
- BL number
- O/381/17
- Concerning rights in
- GB1018608.8
- Hearing Officer
- Dr L Cullen
- Decision date
- 11 August 2017
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Agilent Technologies Inc,
- Provisions discussed
- Section 1(2)(a), (c) and (d); Section 76(2)
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Excluded fields (refused)
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application relates to a method and device for analysing measurement data obtained from a plurality of measurements carried out on a fluidic sample which has been separated in a separation system. This data is experimental data obtained from the separation of a sample comprising multiple components, e.g., analysis of the production of a pharmaceutical product using liquid or gas chromatography. When comparing a plurality of measurements, signal features are clustered together from different measurement data sets to create feature clusters which relate to the same component. The criteria for identifying what signal features will be clustered together to form a feature cluster are set by the user. The signals in each data set may be matched with pre-known technical information, e.g. relating to the expected components in the sample. If there are signal features that are not identified, e.g. additional features are present in the measurement data or some signal features are absent, these can be subject to clustering to determine if they relate to the same component(s) or not. Such unidentified signal clusters would, for example, indicate the presence of impurities in some or all of the fluidic samples.
The hearing officer (HO) considered the latest set of claims on file and found that while they comprised added matter in relation to the rules of clustering and what constituted a failure of same, there was basis for analysing unidentified peaks in a cluster determining unit and determining these clustered unidentified peaks to be suspicious.
Taking account of this feature, the HO then went on to consider if the application fell solely within the area of excluded subject matter. The HO, applying the Aerotel/Macrossan four step test, found that while the application was not excluded as presentation of information, it was excluded as a mathematical method, and as a program for a computer. The application was refused under section 18(3) of the Act.
Full decision O/381/17 
212Kb
