The invention concerns a supply chain management device with dual biometric scanners and dual card readers that authenticates both a supplier and a recipient during a product handover within a 10-second “virtual handshake.” The Board of Appeal found that the use of a dual device (paired scanners and readers) was an obvious design choice and that the transaction time constraint and authentication sequencing reflected non-technical business rules, ultimately confirming the refusal for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC.
Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0520/22 (Logging the transfer of a product/GB-E) of 15 April 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
Duplicating hardware components (e.g., using a pair of biometric scanners and card readers instead of a single set) to allow parallel user input is an obvious design trade-off, not an inventive technical contribution. Transaction rules — such as requiring both parties to authenticate within a fixed time window — are non-technical requirements that cannot support inventive step, even when they impose constraints on hardware design.
The invention
The BoA summarized the invention as follows:
The invention relates to a method for monitoring and tracking transactions in a supply chain, specifically the distribution of goods from a supplier to a recipient, such as the delivery of a pharmaceutical product from a pharmacist to a customer. The primary objective is to improve transparency, traceability, allocation, and accountability of resources along the supply chain. This is achieved by requiring that both the supplier and the recipient are present and successfully identify and authenticate themselves using a single supply chain management device. The device integrates a pair of biometric fingerprint or finger vein scanners and a pair of smart card readers, one for each participant. Authentication is performed by comparing a live biometric sample captured by the scanner against biometric data stored on the participant’s individual smart card. Only after the supplier (operator) is successfully authenticated is the product-identifying component — such as a barcode scanner — activated to scan the product. A data record on a remote server is then updated, linking the identifiers of the supplier, the recipient, and the product. An additional feature is a time constraint: all three identifiers must be captured within a predefined interval of 10 seconds or less, forming a so-called “virtual handshake,” and if this condition is not met, the transaction is cancelled.
-
Sole Request — Claim 1
Is it patentable?
The Examining Division’s position
The examining division held that claim 1 defined an administrative logistics scheme implemented in a straightforward manner on well-known hardware — namely a computer with a display, two smart card readers, two fingerprint or finger vein scanners, and a barcode scanner or RFID reader. In its view, the claim was a direct mapping of non-technical requirements onto conventional components and therefore lacked an inventive step.
The Appellant’s arguments
The appellant argued that the examining division had incorrectly applied the Comvik approach (T 0641/00) by disregarding key technical features. Specifically, the appellant contended that:
- The dual device — a single supply chain management device integrating a pair of card readers and a pair of biometric scanners — was a significant technical feature that should not have been ignored.
- The 10-second transaction time interval imposed a meaningful technical constraint on the system.
- Features F1 (pair of scanners), F2 (pair of card readers with smart-card-based biometric authentication), and F4 (10-second interval) produced a synergistic technical effect: they ensured a reliable and secure transfer by enabling both participants to authenticate in parallel and nearly simultaneously, constituting a “virtual handshake.”
- Using a smart card for local biometric retrieval (instead of querying a remote database, as in D1) enabled faster authentication, and this speed advantage was enhanced by the dual hardware enabling parallel operation.
- D1 (WO 2013/106584 A1) taught away from the claimed solution, because enforcing a 10-second transaction window would not be practical within D1’s framework. There was no incentive to modify D1 toward a dual device.
The Board’s analysis
The Board agreed with the appellant on one point: the examining division’s characterization of the claim as a straightforward mapping was not entirely correct. However, the Board ultimately found no inventive step over D1, for the following reasons:
1. Non-technical transaction rules (Features F3 and F4)
The Board held that the concept of identification and authentication of participants in a product transfer, and the registration or tracking thereof, does not involve technical considerations at an abstract level. The specific transaction rules — i.e., that both participants must authenticate, that the product scanner is activated only after provider authentication (F3), and that all identifiers must be captured within 10 seconds (F4) — were either formulated by a business person or reflected legal requirements such as the U.S. Drug Supply Chain Security Act. The 10-second interval was characterized as arbitrary and set merely to ensure identifiers are obtained “near simultaneously.” Consistent with T 1082/13, the Board viewed the timeout criterion as a non-technical rule defining a valid transaction time.
2. No synergistic effect (Features F1 and F2)
The Board rejected the appellant’s synergy argument. It found that the effects of using smart cards for local biometric data retrieval and of using a dual device for parallel authentication operate independently. Using a smart card instead of a remote database is functionally unrelated to whether authentication occurs via a single or dual device. The combination therefore does not yield a technical effect beyond the sum of its individual contributions, making it a mere aggregation to be assessed separately.
3. Individual features are obvious
Smart cards for biometric authentication were well-known before the priority date — a fact not contested by the appellant.
A dual device instead of a single device offers at most subjective advantages (e.g., convenience). The Board noted it is obvious that duplicating hardware components can allow multiple users to input data in parallel. A skilled person would choose between a single or dual device based on standard design trade-offs — convenience, cost, and portability — none of which support inventive step in this case.
4. Alleged effects not reliably achieved
The Board observed that several of the appellant’s claimed effects depend on unspecified conditions. For example, if the remote database is small, querying it may be faster than inserting a smart card. Similarly, while a dual device may speed up the authentication step, it does not necessarily reduce overall transaction time, which also depends on the product scanning step. Feature F3 could even increase transaction time, as the provider must complete authentication before scanning the product.
5. No teaching away in D1
The appellant’s argument that D1 teaches away from a 10-second time interval amounted to claiming a non-technical prejudice. The Board found no indication of any technical barrier that would prevent a skilled person from setting such a time interval if required. Implementing the constraint using timestamps of scanning events would be a routine task.
Conclusion
The Board concluded that the distinguishing features over D1 either reflect non-technical business or regulatory requirements or represent obvious design choices for the skilled person. Claim 1 of the sole request was found to lack an inventive step under Article 56 EPC. The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.
More information
You can read the full decision here: T 0520/22 (Logging the transfer of a product/GB-E) of 15 April 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.