This decision concerns an invention that relates to a blockchain generation apparatus and a blockchain generation method that generates blockchain data.
Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0367/21 (Electronic payment system/RICCI) June 6th, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.
Key takeaways
Transferring funds using a SEPA system and making use of a clearing and settlement mechanism are business-related, non-technical requirements.
The invention
1. The invention concerns performing instant payments and other types of financial transactions between payer and payee (“receiver”) without the mediation of a third party.
Looking at Figure 2, in order to start a transaction the payer’s 202 and receiver’s 209 mobile terminals exchange transaction information 1, 2 with each other over a wireless network. Based on this information, the payer’s mobile terminal connects to the payer’s bank 204 and orders it to transfer funds in “real time” to the receiver’s bank 205 (see description, page 2, second paragraph after “Invention summary”). The funds are transferred using a SEPA system or an equivalent one (page 4, third paragraph). The receiver’s mobile terminal then connects to the receiver’s bank 5 to check whether the funds have been received and, if so, sends a confirmation message or provides a payment receipt 6 to the payer.
Fig. 2 of EP 3 164 837 A1
-
Claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request
Is it technical?
The Board regards the claim as novel and evaluates inventive step in further detail, establishing three groups of features:
A – the two banks are configured to connect “through a SEPA system implementing an interbank network with a Clearing and Settlement Mechanism and being configured to make real time transactions”;
B – the receiving bank makes the funds immediately available on receiver’s account;
C – the second device connects to the receiver’s bank to check the arrival of funds and then confirms the payment by showing a receipt on its display or by sending a confirmation message
Feature Group A
9. SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) is a payment-integration initiative of the European Union for simplification of bank transfers denominated in euro. It defines a set of interbank rules, practices and standards to be observed by the adherent participants which are of essentially business-related, non-technical nature. In particular, the SEPA scheme is separated from any specific implementing infrastructure, platform or network (see “SEPA credit transfer scheme rulebook”, paragraph 1.5). Similarly, a clearing and settlement mechanism (CSM) is essentially a set of business-related requirements for settling financial transactions.
10. The Board takes the view that transferring funds using a SEPA system and making use of a clearing and settlement mechanism are business-related, non-technical requirements.
11. According to the established case law of the Boards of Appeal, non-technical features do not contribute to inventive step. Instead, they may appear in the formulation of the technical problem, in particular as constraints or requirements to be achieved (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK, Headnotes 1 and 2).
Following this approach, the technical problem solved by feature group A can be formulated as how to transfer funds in real-time between the banks in a manner compliant with the SEPA system and including a CSM.
12. The Board judges that the claimed solution of “configuring” the system accordingly, not adding any further technical features, is a self-evident solution to this problem.
Moreover, conventional network technology already enabled a real-time transfer of information at the publication date of D2 and, technically, the transfer of financial data is not different from the transfer of other types of data.
While SEPA does foresee a (maximum) transfer delay of one business day, this interval is not due to technical, but to administrative issues and can be shortened as desired, for example by means of specific inter-bank agreements (see SEPA credit transfer scheme rulebook, paragraph 1.8)
The Board concludes that the features of group A cannot support an inventive step.
Feature B
17. Making the funds immediately available on the receiver’s account is a further administrative, non-technical requirement. This is because the availability of the received funds is not related to any technical characteristics of the receiving bank’s system, but only depends on the bank’s internal administrative rules. Moreover, the claim provides no technical detail as to how this requirement is implemented.
The Board concludes that the feature B cannot support an inventive step.
Feature Group C
18. The features of group C concern the way in which the first user is notified of the transfer of funds. The “second device” (e.g. the merchant device) connects to the receiver’s bank and confirms the payment by showing a receipt on its display or by sending a confirmation message.
18.1 The appellant argued that the skilled person would not modify the data flow of D2, and that these features provided the technical effect of “simplifying the process of transferring funds between a payer and a receiver while maintaining a high level of safety”.
18.2 The Board, however, does not see how having the confirmation message sent by the receiver device, rather than by the receiver’s bank, may credibly increase the security of the transaction or otherwise simplify the actual transfer of funds. In the Board’s view, the features of group C merely represent one among the obvious, alternative manners of notifying the first user of the arrival of funds. The Board also observes that most known merchant devices provide some form of visual confirmation to the customer when a transaction has taken place.
The Board concludes that the features of group C cannot support an inventive step.
As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the fourth auxiliary request lacks an inventive step. The same applies to the remaining requests. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
More information
The decision can be found here: T 0367/21 (Electronic payment system/RICCI) June 6th, 2024, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.