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.