Routing reward messages based on a Bank Identification Number : non-technical

The decision relates to a reward system that uses prepaid gift cards. The examining division rejected the application, reasoning that a skilled programmer could implement the administrative method without involving an inventive step.

The applicant argued that the invention’s use of a non-bank BIN for routing transactions enhances security by stripping sensitive data before it reaches the card management server, preventing conflicts between different types of transactions, such as credit card and gift card transactions, within a single system. However, the Board disagreed, noting that the specific nature of the identifier is not technically relevant. Additionally, since the claim does not address the relationship between credit card and gift card transaction messages, no technical problem can be derived from the claim.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 0021/21 (Gift card network/IMIDUS) of June 13, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board summarized the invention as follows:

1. The invention relates to a reward system that utilises prepaid gift cards. The primary advantage of the system is that customers can acquire a gift card from one of the participating merchants, such as at a point of sale (POS), and use it at any other participating merchant – see paragraph [0006] of the published application.

2. As shown in Figure 3, the user obtains and activates the gift card at POS station 301, located in store A. A gateway server (kernel) 309 transmits card-related data, such as activation data (“the transaction message being to activate a gift card and set an initial balance” in claim 1), from the POS to card management server 313, and sends a response message back.

3. The path between the gateway server and the card management server (“authorization route”) is established based on the card’s Bank Identification Number (BIN).

 

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division considered that the subject-matter was an obvious implementa­tion of an administrative method for a skilled programmer in view of D2 (US 2008/0201224 A1). In particular:

5. The examining division held that claim 1 was not inventive over D2. They identified the following distinguishing features (see point 1.3.2.4 of the decision):

1. the system of D2 is adapted to perform the administrative method identified in section 1.3.2.2;

2. the routing function of the authorization system of D2 is implemented as part of a gateway kernel and based on a card bank identification number; the computer associated with the first POS device is configured to receive data from the first POS device via a driver; the authorization route comprises another driver.

The examining division concluded that the skilled person, a programmer, would implement the administrative method (distinguishing feature 1) without involving an inventive step, by making obvious implementation choices (distinguishing feature 2).

The Applicant argued that there were structural differences, which the Board did not accept as they were not derivable from the application. The Applicant then argued that creating a routing message was not obvious. The Board disagreed:

10. The Board notes that D2 discloses the concept of routing messages based on an identifier. For example, [0023] and [0042] make it clear that a primary account number (PAN) is used for routing credit card transactions to the appropriate card issuer. In [0062] and [0063], the use of a “reward identifier” is described, which indicates whether a message should be forwarded to the pooled rewards system or not.

The specific nature of the identifier – whether it be a BIN, a flag, or any other suitable identifier – is not relevant from a technical point of view and, therefore, cannot contribute to inventive step.

Finally, the Applicant formulated a technical problem and argued as follows:

11. In the appellant’s view, D2 offered an alternative solution to the problem posed, namely “how to deploy a gift card point of sale reward system for both credit card and gift card transactions whilst ensuring that these different types of transaction are separated and do not conflict with each other” (see statement of grounds of appeal, page 7, second paragraph). In D2, the BIN was only used for forwarding a credit card transaction to the correct credit card issuer once the reward flag was set. In contrast, forwarding a gift card transaction to the card management server based on a non-bank BIN was not obvious.

However, the Board did not agree with the applicant :

12. In the Board’s view, the above mentioned objective technical problem is not derivable from claim 1.

The claim merely defines sending a gift card transaction message from the POS to the gift card management server and receiving a reply message at the POS from the server. This does not involve sending a credit card transaction message and, consequently, does not address the relationship between credit card and gift card transaction messages.

The appellant’s argument that this was derivable from the feature “the gateway server being connected to a credit card formatter” is not convincing. The mere fact that the gateway server is connected to other components, such as a credit card formatter, says nothing about how these components are used in the transaction process.

Therefore, the Board refused the application.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0021/21 (Gift card network/IMIDUS) of June 13, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!