Author Archive

Avoiding unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (such as a user’s facial image) during a payment authentication process: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method and system for managing secure electronic payments using biometric authentication (fingerprints), a PIN code, and a stored facial image of the user, allowing transactions without physical money, cards, or mobile devices. The critical feature at issue was the display of a stored facial image of the user to the seller for identity verification, including the sequencing of this display only after biometric authentication and, for transactions exceeding 30 euros, also after PIN verification, which the appellant argued was a safety measure preventing unauthorized third parties from viewing sensitive personal data. The Board of Appeal considered this data protection requirement to be non-technical under the established Comvik approach and found all requests to lack inventive step over a combination of prior art documents D1 and D3.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1613/22 (Secure payment/GRE-LAB) of 12 December 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

A requirement to avoid the unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (such as a user’s facial image) during a payment authentication process is a non-technical requirement under the Comvik approach and can be treated as a “given” provided to the skilled person for implementation. Defining a specific monetary threshold (e.g. 30 euros) for triggering additional security checks is likewise non-technical and cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns the management of secure electronic transactions. The system comprises at least one payment device (“terminal”) connected to a server storing user-specific information, including biometric data, a PIN, account data and a picture of a user’s face, all provided during a registration phase. When users want to make a payment, they provide their biometric data (for example, fingerprints) to the payment device. For transactions exceeding a predefined threshold, a PIN is also required. The data are compared with those stored on the server. If the check results are positive, the picture of the user’s face is retrieved from the server and displayed to the seller as a further identity check before authorizing the transaction. In this way, it is possible to perform authentication during a transaction without requiring users to carry cards, cash or mobile devices. The method thus enables fully dematerialized payments with multi-factor authentication combining biometric verification, a knowledge factor (PIN), and visual identity confirmation by the seller.

  • Claim 1 of the Fourth Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application on the grounds of a lack of inventive step of claim 1 of all requests in view of D1 (US 2015/046328 A1). The Examining Division identified the characterizing features of claim 1, namely the acquisition and storage of a picture of the user’s face and the display of that picture before authorizing a transaction, as the distinguishing features over D1. It argued that systems providing a seller (e.g. a POS clerk) with a registered image of a customer in the context of a payment transaction in order to verify the customer’s identity were already known, and cited D5 (US 2006/069922 A1) as an example thereof. In addition, the Examining Division raised objections of added subject-matter (Article 123(2) EPC) against all auxiliary requests and a lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) against auxiliary requests 2 to 8 then on file.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that neither D1 nor D3 discloses displaying the stored image of the user’s face after the user’s identity has been verified by means of biometric data and after the PIN has been checked. This argument was raised during the examination proceedings in the letter of 15 November 2021 and maintained on appeal. The appellant specifically argued that the feature of displaying the image only after successful authentication constituted a safety measure, ensuring that images of a registered user were not seen by third parties who may have illegally obtained a transaction number. The appellant thus contended that the sequencing of authentication steps, including the conditional display of the facial image based on the transaction amount, represented a meaningful security improvement over the prior art that should be recognized as contributing to inventive step. In a letter dated 12 June 2025, the appellant withdrew its request for oral proceedings.

The Board’s analysis

Main request

The Board agreed with the parties that the distinguishing features over D1 were the acquisition and storage of a picture of the user’s face and the display of that picture before authorizing the transaction. However, the Board departed from the Examining Division’s reasoning based on D5, noting that D5 stores the picture on the user device rather than on a central server, and therefore even a combination of D1 and D5 would not arrive at the claimed subject-matter. Instead, the Board relied on D3 (US 7523067 B1), which discloses a central server storing user-related authentication information including a picture of a user’s face and displaying said picture to a shop assistant for authentication. Since both D1 and D3 concern user authentication in the context of transactions and both disclose combining several authentication methods, the Board found it obvious to add the facial recognition process of D3 to D1 as a further safety measure.

First, second, and third auxiliary requests

The Board found that the amendments in the first and second auxiliary requests (specifying the central unit/server is remote from the payment device and replacing “central unit” with “server”) did not further limit the claimed subject-matter beyond what was already implicit in the main request. The third auxiliary request’s additional feature of the method being carried out “in a dematerialized mode without using physical money, such as banknotes/coins, or credit cards or telephone” was found to be anticipated by D1, which even explicitly mentions avoiding the use of cash or cards.

Fourth, fifth, and sixth auxiliary requests

These requests added the qualification that the image is displayed after authentication and, if the payment exceeds 30 euros, also after the PIN verification. The Board’s analysis proceeded as follows:

  1. D3 already discloses carrying out additional authentication checks for particularly expensive transactions. The definition of the exact monetary threshold (30 euros) is non-technical and cannot contribute to inventive step.
  2. The Board acknowledged the appellant’s argument that neither D1 nor D3 discloses displaying the stored image after biometric and PIN verification. In D3, the image appears to be displayed at the beginning of the authentication procedure.
  3. However, the Board noted that the image is shown to the shop assistant, not to the party requesting the transaction, making it unclear whether it would even be visible to an unauthorized third party.
  4. Critically, the Board considered the requirement of avoiding the unauthorized display of sensitive personal data (the user image) to be a non-technical requirement. Pursuant to the established Comvik approach, this can be treated as a “given,” i.e. a requirement provided to the skilled person for implementation.
  5. It would then be obvious to the skilled person to implement this requirement by executing the picture-based identification only after verifying the user’s biometric credentials, especially considering that D1 already discloses displaying a user’s name after fingerprint verification.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that claim 1 of all requests (main request and first through sixth auxiliary requests) lacked inventive step over a combination of D1 and D3 (Article 56 EPC). The core distinguishing features of the main request, namely the storage and display of a facial image for identity verification, were found obvious in light of D3’s disclosure of the same concept in a transaction authentication context. For the fourth through sixth auxiliary requests, the additional feature of sequencing the image display after biometric and PIN verification was found to implement a non-technical requirement (data protection/privacy) under the Comvik approach, which the skilled person would have implemented in an obvious manner. The specific monetary threshold of 30 euros was likewise deemed non-technical. The application was therefore refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1613/22 (Secure payment/GRE-LAB) of 12 December 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Post-transaction reselection of a payment method: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method and system for reversing a payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed using a consolidated payment device associated with multiple payment methods. The key feature at issue was the post-transaction reselection of a payment method, including finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that first payment method while authorizing the same transaction with a second payment method. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be a financial, i.e., non-technical matter that does not contribute to inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Changing the payment method after a transaction has been finalized by refunding the first payment method and charging a second one is a financial arrangement, not a technical contribution. Defining such a non-technical requirement without specifying any technical implementation means beyond a standard computer system is insufficient to establish inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to changing the payment method using a consolidated payment device (CPD), such as a card or mobile phone, which allows payment with multiple payment methods. A consolidated payment device is associated with a plurality of payment methods and enables using any of them for transactions at a point of sale or online. In practice, a holder of such a device may need to reverse their payment method selection after a transaction has already been processed, for example due to a mistake or due to latency inherent to the payment method selection process of consolidated payment devices. The invention addresses this by allowing the holder to effectively “go back in time.” A remote server receives a transaction request from the CPD indicating a first payment method. Upon authorization, including verification of sufficient funds, the transaction is finalized using the first payment method. If the holder later decides to use a different payment method, the server receives a reselection request indicating a second payment method. The server then authorizes the transaction with the second payment method and initiates a cancel and refund process for the first payment method. The entire process is designed to be transparent to the merchant or payment recipient, meaning neither the merchant nor the recipient needs to take any action or is even aware that a payment method change has occurred.

  • Main request - Claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division refused the application in a “decision according to the state of the file,” referring to its communication dated 15 November 2021. In that communication, objections were raised under Articles 123(2), 54, and 56 EPC. Regarding Article 123(2) EPC, the examining division objected to the use of the term “reselection request” in the second “authorizing” feature, where the original application used “transaction request.” Regarding novelty (Article 54 EPC), the examining division considered claim 1 to lack novelty over D1 (US 2011/191149), which disclosed a system allowing a customer to change the payment method after a transaction at the POS. Regarding inventive step (Article 56 EPC), the examining division took the view that first finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount was a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which did not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). The examining division further noted that the claim did not specify any technical implementation means going beyond the use of a computer.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that claim 1 included several technical features necessary for carrying out the underlying business activity. In particular, the appellant contended that the data carrier had to be configured to:

  1. Receive, process and authorize a transaction request in respect of a first payment method.
  2. Finalize and debit payment from an authorized first payment method.
  3. Receive and process a reselection request denoting a second payment method for the transaction amount.
  4. Check and authorize the reselection transaction using a second payment method.
  5. Cancel and refund/reimburse the original transaction amount to the first (original) payment method.

The appellant argued that the invention allowed the user of a consolidated payment device to “go back in time” and vary the payment method used for a particular registered transaction to a different payment method, and to have the transaction amount refunded to the original payment method. In the appellant’s view, this constituted a technical effect that contributed to inventive step.

The Board’s analysis

Main request

  1. The Board first addressed the Article 123(2) EPC objection. The amendment replacing “reselection request” with “transaction request” in the second “authorizing” feature overcame the examining division’s objection. The Board found no added matter.
  2. On novelty, the Board disagreed with the examining division and agreed with the appellant that D1 did not disclose finalizing the transaction request for the first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for that payment method. In D1, the payment to the retailer is provided by the financial institution without debiting the customer’s account until the time has elapsed for the customer to choose a payment method. This is not the same as the cancel and refund in claim 1.
  3. On inventive step, however, the Board shared the examining division’s view. First finalizing the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount is a financial, i.e., non-technical matter which does not contribute to inventive step under the COMVIK approach (T 641/00). This non-technical rule is given as part of the framework of the technical problem as a requirement to implement.
  4. The Board found that the means for sending, receiving, and processing transaction requests, including the reselection request, were already disclosed in D1. D1 indeed allows the user to “go back in time” by changing the payment method after the transaction has taken place at the POS. The difference over D1 is merely in how this is solved financially: instead of giving the customer a credit until the final payment method is indicated (as in D1), the claimed invention debits the customer’s account and later refunds the amount.
  5. The Board acknowledged that the implementation might require technical modifications to the payment system, but these were not specified in the claim. The mere definition of means that achieve this was considered self-evident.

First auxiliary request

  1. The first auxiliary request added explicit references to deducting funds corresponding to the transaction amount from both the first and second payment method, and that the reselection request is associated with the transaction request.
  2. The examining division had objected under Article 123(2) EPC because the originally filed application did not explicitly disclose “deducting funds.” The Board disagreed and found that deducting funds is implicit in the disclosure, since a refund on the first payment method implies that the amount was first charged, and paying via the second method involves charging it.
  3. However, the Board held that the first auxiliary request did not add any technical features contributing to inventive step. The appellant did not argue any further technical effects or advantages. The same reasoning as for the main request applied, and claim 1 of the first auxiliary request also lacked inventive step.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal. While the Board found that the claims met the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC and were novel over the cited prior art D1 (US 2011/191149), the distinguishing feature over D1, namely finalizing a transaction with a first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund to switch to a second payment method, was considered a purely financial arrangement. Under the COMVIK approach, this non-technical feature could not contribute to inventive step. Since the claims did not specify any technical implementation details beyond the use of a standard computer system, it would have been obvious for the skilled person to implement this financial requirement on the computer system known from D1. The application was therefore refused for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC for both the main request and the first auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) of 19 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Selective presentation of content of varying complexity: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for selecting online content to present to users based on their content consumption behavior on a social media platform. The key feature at issue was the selective presentation of content of varying complexity depending on the user’s content consumption rate, i.e., adapting whether simpler or more complex content is shown based on how fast the user skims through content. The Board of Appeal considered this feature to be non-technical, representing a concept that could be conceived by a non-technical person, but remitted the case for further examination of a feature relating to ephemeral content handling.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Adapting the complexity of content presented to a user based on their content consumption rate constitutes a non-technical aim under the Comvik approach, even if the consumption rate is objectively measured. However, distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate may involve non-obvious technical implementation considerations, warranting further examination and search.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention relates to a method for selecting the type of additional content to be presented to a user online, for instance on a social media platform. The system measures a rate at which a user consumes content by tracking user inputs requesting content and the elapsed time between these inputs. Based on this consumption rate, the system distinguishes between “high velocity” users who rapidly skim through content and users who engage more carefully. Two categories of content are defined: low-complexity content (e.g., simple images requiring only a brief glance) and high-complexity content (e.g., multi-word text messages or longer audio/video content). When a high content consumption rate is detected, the system presents content of lower complexity, as the user is unlikely to engage deeply with complex information. Conversely, users exhibiting a lower consumption rate are presented with more complex content that requires a greater amount of time to process. The application also describes handling ephemeral content, i.e., content available only for a limited time, differently from static content when calculating the consumption rate. Content of both types may be pre-cached locally on the device for rapid retrieval once the system determines which type to present.

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) over a notoriously known general-purpose networked computer system such as an Internet-enabled smartphone. Applying the Comvik approach (T 641/00), the Examining Division considered that the presentation of content to a user based on the user’s content consumption rate constituted an administrative or business scheme, or alternatively a mental act, which did not involve any technical considerations or produce a technical effect. The division reasoned that the underlying mental concept of adapting the complexity of presented content to the recipient’s capabilities was already known in non-technical contexts such as teaching or sales, and therefore did not contribute to inventive step. The technical contribution of the claimed method was seen as lying solely in the implementation of this non-technical scheme through conventional information technology. Such implementation was regarded as a straightforward automation of an abstract concept, which did not render the scheme itself technical. The Examining Division found no technical interaction between the non-technical scheme and its computer implementation capable of producing a further technical effect that could support an inventive step.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the content consumption rate was an objectively measured technical metric rather than a subjective assessment of a user’s mental abilities, and that its determination and use were therefore of a technical nature. In support of its position, the Appellant advanced several alleged technical effects:

  1. The invention provided a more efficient mechanism for searching and retrieving content, as the content presented was tailored to the user’s interactions with the computer system without requiring active user input. Referring to T 643/00 (Searching image data/CANON), the Appellant argued that assisting a user in performing a search task constitutes a technical effect.
  2. Referring to T 1351/04 (File search method/FUJITSU) and T 2539/12 (Searching a hierarchically structured database/SOFTWARE AG), the Appellant argued that the creation and searching of a database based on a novel metric constituted a technical improvement in how a computer system searches for information. Organising data according to content complexity amounted to a new database structure, which had been recognised as technical in T 3176/19 (Data handling system/Broadridge Financial Solutions).
  3. The claimed invention produced an additional “bonus effect” of reducing the amount of data transmitted, since only relevant content was presented to the user.
  4. Document D1 (a blog post about YouTube’s watch time ranking factor) should be used as the closest prior art, and the skilled person starting from D1 would not have arrived at the subject-matter of claim 1 without inventive skill.

The Board’s analysis

Main Request

The Board was not persuaded by any of the Appellant’s arguments and concurred with the Examining Division’s refusal:

  1. Starting point for inventive step: The Board confirmed that the notoriously known networked computer system was a reasonable starting point. It is not necessary to begin from the closest prior art in the sense of the document having the greatest number of features in common with the claimed invention; any reasonable starting point is sufficient.
  2. Objective measurement does not equal technical character: Whether a metric is calculated on an objective basis is not a decisive criterion for assessing its technical character. Many objective calculations serve no technical purpose, such as financial balance sheets or mortgage repayment schedules. The proper criterion remains whether a feature produces a technical effect or is at least based on technical considerations (T 641/00, T 2314/16).
  3. No search function: Presenting content to a user based on a consumption rate does not constitute a search. A search involves the purposeful retrieval of specific information in response to a query, whereas providing content based on observed behaviour amounts to a recommendation. Recommendation systems have consistently been regarded as non-technical (T 306/10, T 1869/08).
  4. No novel database structure: The claim does not define any specific database structure. Categorising data according to complexity amounts merely to assigning a label or attribute. The choice of a suitable data structure for this purpose would be routine for the skilled person.
  5. No bonus effect: There is no causal link between the relevance of content and the volume of data transmitted. In any event, a bonus effect cannot by itself support inventive step.
  6. Non-technical character confirmed: The Board found that adapting the complexity of content according to the user’s content consumption rate represents an idea that could be conceived by the notional business person (T 1463/11) or a non-technical person. The implementation, including measuring user inputs and elapsed time to determine the consumption rate, was considered almost self-evident and obvious.

First Auxiliary Request

The first auxiliary request specified that the first type of content includes content with a number of words above a threshold, and the second type includes content with fewer words. The Board found these features did not add anything of a technical nature, and the same reasoning as for the main request applied.

Third Auxiliary Request

The third auxiliary request (The Appellant had withdrawn the second auxiliary request) added that the media content includes ephemeral content (available only until an availability time threshold) and static content, and that the content consumption rate is calculated differently for each type. The Board found that the distinction between ephemeral and static content and their different treatment in calculating the consumption rate could not be regarded as obvious in the absence of prior art. Since the Examining Division had treated this as a non-technical requirement, it was unclear whether this feature had been searched. The Board remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution, including a search on the basis of the third auxiliary request.

Conclusion

The Board set aside the decision under appeal and remitted the case to the Examining Division for further prosecution. While the main request and the first auxiliary request were refused for lack of inventive step because adapting content complexity based on consumption rate was deemed a non-technical concept with an obvious technical implementation, the third auxiliary request raised an open question. The feature distinguishing between ephemeral and static content for the purpose of calculating the consumption rate could not be dismissed as obvious without prior art, and it was uncertain whether a search had been conducted for this feature. The case was therefore remitted for a search and further examination of the third auxiliary request.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1207/22 (Adapting the complexity of content based on the content consumption rate/SNAP) of 13 February 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Detecting relative movement between a user’s face and an augmented reality element: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a method for controlling an augmented reality (AR) user interface by detecting a user’s face and its movement relative to AR elements displayed on a device screen. The key features at issue were the detection of relative movement between a facial reference feature and a first AR element, and the subsequent modification of the AR element’s presentation along with the display of a further AR element. The Board of Appeal considered these distinguishing features to be non-technical, as they relate to the presentation of information as such.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) of 5 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Key takeaways

Detecting relative movement between a user’s face and an augmented reality element, and modifying the AR element’s presentation accordingly, concerns the presentation of information as such and is non-technical. Controlling the presentation of AR objects on a GUI does not constitute a “technical task” performed on a device within the meaning of the established case law (T 336/14, T 1802/13).

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The application relates to an augmented reality system for controlling a user interface with an object depicted within the user interface. The system initiates an augmented reality mode on a device, such as a smartphone, configured to present AR elements within a graphical user interface. A face of the user is detected within the field of view of a camera coupled to the device. In response to detecting the face, a set of AR elements is sequentially presented within the GUI, with a subset of AR elements and the face depicted contemporaneously. Movement of a reference feature of the face is detected by tracking landmark points across video frames. The movement is detected relative to a first AR element, which itself changes positions across successively captured frames. In response to detecting this relative movement, the system modifies the presentation of the first AR element and presents at least one second AR element. A practical example described in the application is a game where AR objects fly toward the user’s face, and the user dodges or catches them by moving their face or the device.

  • Main request, claim 1

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The Examining Division refused the application on the basis that, among other grounds, the claims lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC and certain auxiliary requests contained added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. With respect to inventive step, the Examining Division relied on document D1 (EP 2759909 A2), which likewise discloses a method relating to augmented reality where movement of parts of an image is detected and the presentation of a virtual object is modified. The Examining Division found that D1 disclosed all features of claim 1 except the detection of relative movement between the face and the AR element (feature (e)) and the resulting modification and presentation of a further AR element (feature (h)). The Examining Division considered these distinguishing features to relate to presentation of information as such and held that in both D1 and the present invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or a video of real objects. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Examining Division found that the combination of features relating to detecting relative movement (feature (e)) and determining a proximity threshold (feature (j)) constituted an impermissible combination of separately disclosed embodiments, violating Article 123(2) EPC.

The Appellant’s arguments

The Appellant argued that the distinguishing features provided several technical effects, namely facilitating interactions between a user and an AR object, enabling real-time control of AR objects through real physical movements, enabling control of functions of a device through real physical movements, and providing an improved method of control for a computer device. The Appellant submitted that the objective technical problem should be formulated as “how to facilitate control of a device or GUI with a captured real world object.” With respect to obviousness, the Appellant argued that D1 taught away from the distinguishing features because D1 detected simply the movement of two real objects, functioning as a mirror without any interaction between the user and the objects. The Appellant also relied on a number of Board of Appeal decisions in support of its position that the distinguishing features provided a technical effect. Regarding added subject-matter, the Appellant argued that paragraphs [0053], [0061], and [0062] and Figure 7 of the application as filed provided a clear basis for combining operation 340 of method 300 (Figure 3) with the steps of method 700 (Figure 7), pointing to paragraph [0053] which stated that “certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300.” The Appellant further argued that the combination was based on the “intention of the invention,” was “intuitive for the skilled person,” and constituted “a very natural and intuitive pairing of features.”

The Board’s analysis

Main request (inventive step)

The Board held that the distinguishing features (e) and (h) did not lead to any technical effect. In particular:

  1. It was not apparent which interactions would actually be facilitated. When the user’s face does not move and the AR object moves, the presentation of the AR object is modified without any input by the user’s face.
  2. “Real physical movements” do not lead to a control of AR objects. According to feature (e), it is the relative movement that is detected, which may equally result from movement of the AR element alone.
  3. Controlling the presentation of AR objects on a GUI is not per se a “technical task” performed on a device within the meaning of T 336/14 (catchword) and T 1802/13 (Reasons 2.1.5). Claim 1 does not refer to any device functions beyond the modification of the presentation of an AR object and the presentation of a further AR object.
  4. The relevant features concern the presentation of information as such and are non-technical (citing T 1143/06, T 1741/08, and T 336/14).
  5. The reference to paragraph [0025] of the application made by the Appellant did not relate to the distinguishing features.

Since the distinguishing features have no technical effect, the Board reformulated the objective technical problem using the COMVIK approach (T 641/00): to modify the method of D1 such that when relative movement between the face and the AR element is detected, the presentation thereof is modified and a further AR element is displayed. The Board found that the skilled person would have effortlessly solved this problem, as the detection referred to does not pose any difficulties to a skilled person in GUI design and the claimed subject-matter does not provide any additional information regarding technical implementation. The Board was not persuaded by the teaching-away argument, agreeing with the Examining Division that in both D1 and the invention, movement of displayed objects is detected regardless of whether they are AR objects or real objects.

First auxiliary request (inventive step)

The added features (i) and (b1) relate to depicting the first AR element as passing behind a portion of the user and specifying the face as that of a user. The Board held that these features concern a mere presentation of information, in particular the manner how information is presented (cf. T 1802/13), and thus cannot contribute to inventive step either. The first auxiliary request was rejected for the same reasons as the main request.

Second to fourth auxiliary requests (added subject-matter)

The Board endorsed the Examining Division’s finding that these requests violated Article 123(2) EPC. The combination of feature (e) (detecting relative movement) with feature (j) (determining a proximity threshold) extended beyond the original disclosure because these features relate to separate embodiments (Figures 3-6 vs. Figures 7-10). The Board found that paragraphs [0061] and [0062] and Figure 7 do not actually disclose “detecting a movement of a reference feature of the face relative to the first augmented reality element.” Although paragraph [0053] states that “certain operations of the method 700 may be performed using one or more operations of the method 300,” the description does not disclose which operations may be combined, and the result of detecting relative movement plays no particular role in these auxiliary request claims. The Board also rejected the Appellant’s criteria of “intention of the invention,” “intuitive for the skilled person,” and “a very natural and intuitive pairing of features” as unsuitable standards under Article 123(2) EPC, which requires that the combination be derivable directly and unambiguously from the application as originally filed.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety. For the main request and the first auxiliary request, the Board found that the distinguishing features over D1 relate to the presentation of information as such and do not produce any technical effect. Including these non-technical features in the formulation of the objective technical problem under the COMVIK approach, the Board concluded that the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed subject-matter without inventive effort. For the second to fourth auxiliary requests, the Board confirmed that the specific combination of features from different embodiments was not originally disclosed, constituting added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. The application was therefore refused.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0971/24 (User interface for augmented reality/SNAP) of 5 November 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Duplicating hardware components: non-technical

The invention underlying the discussed decision 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:

  1. 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.
  2. The 10-second transaction time interval imposed a meaningful technical constraint on the system.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Generating a chip design using simulation: non-technical

This decision concerns the generation of a design model for a chip design using a simulation design tool. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical in view of the most recent landmark decision G1/19 concerning computer-implemented inventions and simulations, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1768/20 (Characterization of standard cells/RACYICS) of July 3, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07.

Key takeaways

T 1227/05 (Circuit Simulation I/Infineon Technologies) is no longer relevant in view of the more recent landmark decision G 1/19.

A claimed manufacturing step could be an argument in favour of patentability of simulation-based inventions.

The invention

The subject-matter of the application is described in the Abstract of the originally filed specification as follows:

The invention discloses a method for an improved characterization of standard cells in a circuit design process. The object of the invention to provide a method for compiling library files, which are used for the design process of cells in digital circuits, whereas the adaptive body biasing (ABB) can be considered during the design process, will be solved by using simulation results of a cell set, which is defined by a fabrication process …

Fig. 1 of WO 2019/025030 A1

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The application underlying the present decision was rejected by the first instance Examining Division due to lack of inventive step for the following reasons:

4.1 The examining division considered that, even assuming that storing results in a library file implied the use of technical means, the method of claim 1 of the current main request lacked an inventive step for the following reasons: first, it was well known to store cell characterisation data in library computer files (see document D1, columns 17 and 18). Second, the further steps corresponded to non-technical user requirements that, according to the COMVIK approach (see decision T 641/00), were part of the objective technical problem (see contested decision, point 2).

Against this finding, the appellant argued as follows in its statement of grounds of appeal:

4.2 In its statement of grounds of appeal, pages 4 to 8, the appellant submitted that the method of claim 1 was not a mental act as such but rather used a design tool as technical means. The claimed method generated a design model with improved characterisation of a standard cell. The results of said characterisation were stored in a library file containing library corners or so-called PVT corners. These data were used in the simulation process of standard cells for highly integrated semiconductor components by the customers and were needed to simulate how a designed circuit might work later (see description, page 3, starting at line 16).

To support this line of argumentation, the appellant inter alia referred to the famous circuit simulation decision (T 1227/05) and to the well-know nuclear reactor simulation decision (T 0914/02):

Referring to decision T 1227/05, the appellant argued that the method had a technical character as it concerned the technical field of chip manufacturing. Since the method was implemented by design tools, this added to the technical character in view of decision T 914/02. A direct use of controllable natural forces was not necessary for an invention (see statement of grounds of appeal, page 5, first and second full paragraphs).

However, the Board in charge did not follow these arguments and found that T 1227/05 is no longer relevant. Instead, the findings of G1/19 are now to be considered:

4.4 The board considers that the cited decision T 1227/05, which concerned computer-implemented methods for the numerical simulation of electronic circuits, is no longer relevant to the present case in view of the more recent decision G 1/19, which reconsidered the general approach for assessing the technical character of computer-implemented methods for simulation and design (see point 133). Consequently, decision G 1/19 is the essential case law that has to be considered when assessing inventive step in the current case, and the board summarises some relevant aspects of this decision below.

In the following, the Board in charge mainly relied on the following quotation of G1/19:

Point 128 of decision G 1/19 summarised that calculated data “reflecting the physical behaviour of a system modelled in a computer usually cannot establish the technical character of an invention in accordance with the COMVIK approach, even if the calculated behaviour adequately reflects the behaviour of a real system underlying the simulation. Only in exceptional cases could such calculated effects be considered implied technical effects (for example, if the potential use of such data is limited to technical purposes, see point E.I.f above)”. Point E.I.f comprises points 97 and 98.

The Board noted that claim 1 would fail to specify a further use of the claimed library file including the simulation results (i.e., the improved design model), e.g., in terms of a manufacturing step, which could be an argument in favour of patentability:

4.5 The board considers that, in the current case, the result of the calculations effected by the method steps of claim 1 is a design model with an “improved” characterisation that is obtained by simulation (see characterising part of claim 1, for example) of a standard cell which is provided in a library file. Such a library file is, at least according to the description, used by customers in later stages of the overall design process (see description of the published application, page 5, lines 12 to 17 and page 10, lines 3 to 11), but the method of claim 1 does not contain steps specifying the use of the produced library file in later design or manufacturing steps. A use of the design model in a manufacturing step would have been particularly relevant since the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the inclusion of a manufacturing step to be an argument in favour of patentability (see point 134 of decision G 1/19).

Against this background, the Board concluded that the claimed improved design (stored in the library filed) fails to provide a technical effect. Hence, the corresponding features were ignored for the assessment of inventive step according to the COMVIK appraoch:

4.5.2 Since the result of the method of claim 1 is calculated data for an improved design that is obtained using simulation, it follows from points 97, 98 and 138 of decision G 1/19 that the improved design does not contribute to inventive step since no “further” technical effect, such as controlling a machine in the foundry during a manufacturing process, is derivable.

With regard to the two additional auxiliary requests, the Board did not come to a different assessment.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1768/20 (Characterization of standard cells/RACYICS) of July 3, 2023

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Transaction amount: non-technical

This decision concerns using NFC technology for conducting payments. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0801/20 (NFC mobile wallet processing system/PAYPAL) of June 1, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Data alone – whether technical or not – does not convey technical character to a method that processes it.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

1.1 The invention concerns using near field communication (NFC) to make payments (page 1, third paragraph of the published application).

1.2 Looking at Figure 1, a user initiates a payment transaction by sending a transaction request from their NFC-enabled mobile device 102, such as a phone, to a transaction management system (TMS) 130. The TMS 130 then creates a pending transaction record and sends to the user’s device an NFC-formatted transaction identifier (“checkout token”). The user passes the token to a merchant system 108, e.g. by tapping their phone on an NFC reader 104 (page 45, lines 4 to 25).

The merchant system 108 then submits a merchant transaction request to the TMS 130, which includes the checkout token and some transaction details. The TMS updates the pending transaction record and sends the transaction details to the user along with a list of available payment accounts from which the user can select. Once the TMS receives the user’s selection, it completes the payment (page 45, line 22 to page 47, line 27).

1.3 An essential aspect of the claimed invention is that the merchant system transmits the transaction details to the TMS in two steps: the merchant’s identifier is sent with the transaction request, while the transaction amount is sent later. This is because the transaction amount might not have been calculated yet when the merchant’s transaction request is transmitted. The TMS also forwards the received pieces of transaction information to the user’s mobile device in separate steps (page 38, line 19 to page 39, line 19).

Fig. 1 of WO 2015/130967 A1

  • Claim 8 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The application underlying the present decision was rejected by the first instance Examining Division due to lack of inventive step (cf. decision, “Summary of Facts and Submissions”). With the aim to set this decision aside, the applicant lodged an appeal. At appeal stage, as a first step, the Board in charge determined the distinguishing features of claim 8 over the closest prior art document D1 as follows:

(i) The merchant system transmits the transaction details to the TMS in two steps: first, it sends the merchant’s identifier, and then the transaction amount. After each step, the TMS updates the pending transaction record and forwards the received information to the user.

(ii) The TMS sends a list of “available” payment accounts from which the user can select to complete the payment.

According to the appellant’s arguments, specifically the claimed “amount” according to distinguishing feature (i) would be of technical nature as it would refer to a quantity:

2.3 As regards feature (i), the appellant argued that an “amount” was technical as it represented a quantity. It was inconsistent to say that an amount was technical when it referred to a physical parameter, such as voltage, but non-technical when it referred to money. Furthermore, transmitting and receiving data to/from a device, as well as updating a data record, were all technical processes.

However, the Board in charge disagreed and considered to claimed “amount” non-technical and reasoned its finding as follows:

2.4 The Board notes that an amount is just a number and per se non-technical. Whether this number represents technical or non-technical data depends on the context. However, data alone – whether technical or not – does not convey technical character to the method that processes it. Method steps contribute to the technical character of the invention only if they contribute to the solution of a technical problem by providing a technical effect (e.g. T 154/04 – Estimating sales activity/DUNS LICENSING, point 20).

Furthermore, the appellant considered the two-step approach reflected in distinguishing feature (i) to be technical and argued as follows:

2.5 The appellant further argued that the two-step transmission and display of transaction details enabled the user to verify the merchant’s identity while waiting for the transaction amount to be determined. Receiving transaction information piece by piece was easier for the user to process, saved time and reduced latency.

Again, the Board did not follow the appellant’s arguments:

2.6 The Board does not find this argument convincing. Displaying information piece by piece or all at once is a matter of user preference. Some users may prefer to receive the merchant details in advance, others may prefer to see all relevant information together. Even if a user receives the merchant’s identity beforehand, they may still choose to wait until all transaction details arrive before reviewing them. Thus, any effect the displayed information might have depends on the user and the user’s reaction to this information. Such indirect effects cannot be considered when assessing inventive step (see e.g. T 1670/07 – Shopping with mobile device/NOKIA, point 11). Although displaying information piece by piece may make it easier to evaluate and, hence, lower the user’s cognitive burden, this is not a technical effect (see e.g. T 1741/08 – GUI layout/SAP, point 2.1.6).

With respect to distinguishing feature (ii), the appellant was of the opinion that this feature would lead to a bandwidth reduction:

2.7 As regards feature (ii), the appellant argued that by providing a list of accounts that were suitable for the transaction, the system required less bandwidth and computing resources. This was because, on the one hand, non-usable accounts were not transmitted, and, on the other hand, the system did not have to process non-viable account selections.

However, the Board noted that the payment accounts are even transmitted twice and thus doubts that this may result in improved transmission efficiency:

2.8 The Board is not convinced that the effects identified by the appellant are achieved. According to the claim, the TMS transmits payment accounts to the user’s mobile device twice: first, it transmits some unspecified payment accounts, and then, it transmits “a list of available payment accounts that can be used in the transaction”. …

Against this background, the Board concluded that both features (i) and (ii) are non-technical and thus have to be ignored for the assessment of inventive step. Hence, D1 would render obvious the claimed subject-matter of claim 8 of the Main Request.

Since claim 7 of the Auxiliary Request was also considered non-inventive, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0801/20 (NFC mobile wallet processing system/PAYPAL) of June 1, 2023

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Reminders on a mobile device: non-technical

This decision concerns a mobile phone application allowing event configuration and processing. Specifically, a user may specify that an image is to be displayed at a certain time and the system monitoring the time and displaying the image at the specified time. However, most of the claimed features were considered non-technical and since the technical distinguishing features were considered obvious, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1682/20 (Image reminder system/LG) of March 10, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.06.

Key takeaways

Non-technical user requirements cannot contribute to inventive step.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

1. The application relates to a mobile terminal configured to classify, manage, and display images. In particular, the mobile is configured to associate images to events, and to display the images upon detection of the associated event (paragraph 3). The event may be location, time, or application related (paragraph 5). The user can configure the event by voice input (paragraphs 61, 164, 189). For instance, the user can take an image of a specific parking spot, and this image can be displayed upon the user returning to the parking area (paragraph 49); or the user may desire that an image is displayed on a certain date (e.g. a birthday; see paragraphs 49, 167); or when an application is opened (e.g. a banking app; see paragraphs 190 – 191). The annotated images may be automatically deleted after a certain amount of time (paragraph 146).

Fig. 1 of EP 3 139 304 A1

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

The first instance examining division identified several distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D1:

3. The Examining Division started its analysis from D1 and acknowledged a set of differences (see the decision, point 13.4) related to the event configuration and processing, essentially about the user specifying that an image is to be displayed at a certain time and the system monitoring the time and displaying the image at the specified time.

Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the examining division used some of them in the formulation of the objective technical problem:

3.1 It argued in essence (decision 13.5 to 13.11), with reference to the description at paragraphs 49-52, 199 and 275, that the effect of these differences over D1, namely the users’ “satisfaction” or their “being reminded of past events” occurred only in the head of the user and hence was not a technical effect. Moreover, scheduling as such was an administrative consideration. The relevant steps could thus be used as a constraint in the formulation of the objective technical problem according to the problem-solution approach.

3.2 The objective technical problem given to the skilled person was therefore how to implement, on the mobile terminal of D1, the requirements specification that encompasses the distinguishing procedural steps. The technical implementation of these steps was a matter of routine computer programming and did not involve an inventive step.

Since the implementation of the aforementioned steps was considered a routine task, the examining division rejected the application due to lack of inventive step.

In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant argued that the examining division did not properly define the technical problem and suggested the following problem formulation:

4.1 … The objective technical problem, based on the differences identified, should therefore be formulated as follows: “how to provide an efficient means for configuring inputs to a form of reminder system on a mobile terminal”.

According to the Appellant, D1 does not suggest a solution to this problem.

In its assessment, the Board in charge considered both D1 and a standard mobile device with photo capabilities and voice input as suitable starting points to arrive at the claimed subject-matter (cf. decision, item 5). Over each of the two possible starting points, the invention would provide the following addition:

6. The claimed subject matter can be summarized, as also stated by the Appellant, as providing a form of reminder system on a mobile device. This system displays images upon activation of the reminder; the user configures the reminder by using voice input.

However, the Board considered this as pure non-technical user requirements:

6.2 Reminders, in general, are meant to bring a piece of information to the users’ attention when they want it. The type of information that users want to be reminded of and the (type of) conditions triggering the reminder are therefore user requirements.

The only technical contribution was identified as follows:

6.6 The only difference features that do not follow immediately from the user requirements are those related to the (sub-)problem identified by the appellant, i.e. how to enable user input for configuring the reminder.

Then, the Board found that considering user input at a mobile device was a standard routine for the skilled person:

6.7 In the Board’s view, the skilled person would consider user input in any conventional modality available on a mobile device. This includes voice, as exemplified by D1 in paragraph 32.

Hence, the Board arrived at the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter would be rendered-obvious when starting from D1. The same would apply if one would consider a standard mobile phone as starting point (cf. decision, item 7).

Finally, the Board expressed that similar considerations would apply to the auxiliary requests.

Consequently, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal due to lack of inventive step.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1682/20 (Image reminder system/LG) of March 10, 2023 of March 10, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Accepting a transaction if information about it provided by a customer and a POS coincide within certain limits: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to the authentication of a wireless payment transaction at a point of sale (POS). However, since the distinguishing features were considered to refer to a business scheme, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0768/17 (Authenticating wireless payments/VODAFONE) of January 26, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Business ideas do not involve any technical considerations.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

3.1 The invention concerns the authentication of a wireless payment transaction at a point of sale (POS) (see published application, paragraphs [6] and [7]).

3.2 Looking at Figure 3, the core idea is to receive independently information about a payment transaction from the POS’s reader device (120 – “first information about the transaction” in the claims) and a customer’s mobile communication device (110 – “second information about the transaction”) and to accept the transaction only if those information items “coincide within certain limits”, see [12] and [16]. This effectively means that the transaction is rejected if the mobile device and the POS terminal provide inconsistent information about it.

3.3 Payments are conducted using a payment identifier which the mobile communication device receives from a backend system (105). While not claimed, but disclosed in the application, the identifier may be for example an IBAN, see [5] and [38].

In order to carry out a payment at the POS, the mobile communication device wirelessly transfers the identifier, stored in a secure element (115), to the reader device ([6]) along with the first information about the transaction ([12] and [13]). The reader device forwards the received data to the backend system, which is entrusted with the transaction authentication, via a first communication channel. Additionally, the mobile device prepares the second information about the transaction and sends it to the backend system via a second wireless communication channel, see [12], [16], [25] and [28].

The backend system compares the first and second information and if they coincide within certain limits ([16]), it instructs a bank system to effect the payment ([40]).

Fig. 3 of EP 2 824 628 A1

  • Claim 1 of the fifth Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

The Board started its assessment with the fifth auxiliary request as this request is the most specific one.

At first, the Board determined the distinguishing features of claim 1 in view of the closest prior art document D1 as follows:

A) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to receive via a first communication channel a request of confirmation comprising at least the part of the identifier transferred to the reader device (120) and first information about the transaction;

B) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to receive the second information about the transaction from the mobile communication device (110) via a different second communication channel;

C) The backend processor (102) is adapted to compare the first and second information about the transaction;

D) The backend processor (102) is further adapted to authenticate the request and to prepare a confirmation to verify the identifier transferred to the reader device (120) if the comparison reveals that the first and second information coincide within certain limits;

E) The backend interface (103) is further adapted to transfer the confirmation for initiating a payment by means of a bank system, if the request is authenticated (130).

With respect to feature C), the appellant argued that this feature would be based on technical considerations. This is because it would allow to detect human mistakes, fraudulent data manipulation and transmission disturbances (cf. decision, Section XV, 1st para.).

Hence, the technical problem could allegedly be formulated as follows:

The technical problem was to enable data exchange between the relevant devices such that the manipulation of electronically processed transaction data could be detected.

Verifying transactions by comparing the first and second information was quite similar to using checksums which was technical. The condition that the first and second information coincided within certain limits, rather than being identical, reflected the fact that the technical system in the real world incurred some error which should be allowed for.

To substantiate his position, the appellant argued that verifying transactions by comparing the first and second information was quite similar to using checksums which was technical (cf. decision, Section XV, 3rd para.).

However, according to the Board, the distinguishing features would only refer to a business method and, consequently, considered them as being non-technical:

4.4 As set out above, the distinguishing features implement the idea that the transaction is accepted if the information about it provided by the customer and the POS coincide within certain limits. Like the contested decision and contrary to the appellant’s view (see decision, pages 5 to 6 and section XV above), the Board judges that this is a business idea which does not involve any technical considerations. Entrusting the backend instance with authenticating transactions is a further business decision.

Moreover, the Board could not see that the alleged technical effect (see above) is actually achieved by the distinguishing features over the whole scope as claimed:

4.6 Contrary to the appellant’s view, the Board cannot see that, at the level at which they are defined, the distinguishing features enable detecting transmission disturbances between the user mobile device and the reader device.

…

4.7 Furthermore, in view of the lack of detail concerning the content of the compared information and the vagueness of the comparison criterion, the Board doubts that the alleged effect of detecting a human mistake or fraudulent manipulation of transaction data is achieved over the whole scope of the claim.

Even if one would assume that the claimed method would allow the detection of human mistake and manipulation, these effects would stem from a business idea and could thus not contribute to inventive step:

However, even assuming that in some cases a human mistake and manipulation could be detected, these effects would result from the aforementioned business idea and not from its technical implementation and, therefore, would not count towards an inventive step.

Against this background, in line with the COMVIK principles, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary requests lacks inventive step. Since claim 1 of the first to fourth auxiliary requests are broader than claim 1 of the fifth auxiliary request, they would lack an inventive step for the above reasons, too.

Consequently, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0768/17 (Authenticating wireless payments/VODAFONE) of January 26, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Identifying an overall suspicion level for a transaction: non-technical

This decision concerns an application relating to a video-based method and system for detecting whether goods or items have been properly scanned at point-of-sale or cashier terminals. However, since the distinguishing feature was considered to refer to a subjective perception, the EPO refused grant. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.01.

Key takeaways

Terms that merely concern a subjective perception (like a “suspicion level”) can typically not contribute to the technical character.

The invention

The invention underlying the present decision may be summarized as follows:

Conventional cashier or point-of-sale (POS) systems that provide for purchase of items using a scanner or other automated identification of items via code suffer from a variety of deficiencies. In particular, operation of such systems can be compromised either knowingly or unknowingly by an operator in a manner that allows a customer to receive possession of one or more items without paying for them. In particular, such systems are susceptible to “pass-throughs”, also know as “sweethearting” in which an operator purposefully or accidentally fails to scan an item as that item moves through the transaction area. In such cases, the POS system never detects the unscanned item and the item is thus never totaled into the purchase price. In such cases, the customer effectively receives the item for free. Retail chains lose millions of dollars a year to operator error or fraudulent activity of this nature. In a non-fraudulent example, an operator may unknowingly pass an item through the scanning area during a transaction and place the item into the item output area such as a downstream conveyor belt, but no scan of the item took place. Perhaps the operator was not paying attention and did not notice (or did not care) that the scanner failed to beep during scanning of an item (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 2, l. 9-25).

The system according to the invention uses video data analysis techniques as will be explained to detect activity such as sweethearting or pass-throughs. In particular, the system detects incidents of theft or loss of inventory at the cash register, POS or other transaction terminal when an operator such as a customer or store employee passes one or more items around the scanner (or RFID reader) without being scanned, or when the operator scans or manually enters an incorrect code into the transaction terminal for an item. The system can also detect items which may be mislabeled with an incorrect bar code to be misread by the scanner or entered as the wrong item by the operator (cf. WO 2006/105376 A2, p. 3, l. 30-37).

 

Fig. 1 of WO 2006/105376 A2

  • Claim 1 of the first Auxiliary Request

Is it patentable?

First of all, the Board in charge rejected the Main Request because of a lack of inventive step (cf. Reasons for the Decision, items 1-30). Then the Board turned to the first Auxiliary Request and determined the distinguishing features over the closest prior art document D6 as follows:

33. The claimed method is further distinguished from the method of D6 in that the process is automatic, in that it incorporates a step of comparing the set of transaction events with the transaction data in order to identify a discrepancy in the respective number of items, and in the further step of identifying an overall “suspicion level” for the transaction.

However, according to the Board, specifically the comparison step to identify a discrepancy to generate a suspicion level would lack technical character:

34. Contrary to the appellant’s view, the step of comparing the set of detection events with the set of transaction data to identify a discrepancy is not technical. Independently of the nature of the events, it must be stressed that the comparison carried out simply compares data. All in all, the claimed step of comparing said data amounts to a mere comparison of lists by computer means.

35. The origin of the data are without bearing on the claimed step of comparing. The technicality of the transaction, as it manifests itself in the movement of items in a sequence of video frames, is lost when it comes to the step of comparing the data. The Board further rejects the view that the count that results from the comparison is technical in the context of the invention. The mere fact that the identification of a discrepancy is used to generate a “suspicion level” is also not sufficient to confer technical character to said method. The notion of “suspicion” is essentially subjective and as such not technical. The same applies to any parameters that may be derived therefrom.

Against this background, the Board concluded that the only feature of technical nature that distinguishes the claimed method from the teaching of D6 resides in the automation of the claimed process (cf. decision, item 36). However, since this would simply reflect a trend in technology, this feature would not be sufficient for an inventive step.

Since all other requests would either be inadmissible or would lack inventive step, the Board in charge dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 2156/17 (Detecting suspicious activity using video analysis / NCR Corporation) of June 10, 2022.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field