The invention relates to relates to a mobile payment method. The Examining Division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present and refused the application
The Board agreed with the Appellant and considered that features together contribute to synergistic technical effect increasing transaction security, and and should not be assessed separately. Since the skilled person had no indication to modify and arrive at the claimed method, it was considered inventive
Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2426/19 of October 11, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.
Key takeaways
How to increase transaction security is a technical problem
Increasing transaction security by hindering any manipulation by/at the POS terminal is a technical effect
The invention
The invention relates to a mobile payment method involving a transaction device communicating with a payment device and institution server and aims to provide secure transactions. According to the invention, the server generates a barcode and sends it to the POS terminal, ensuring that the transaction details received by the mobile device match those sent by the POS terminal. The mobile device then transmits the transaction details received via the barcode to the server, and the server compares them to those received from the POS terminal. Only after a positive outcome of the comparison can the mobile device generate and transmit a payment request, enhancing transaction security.
-
Method Claim 1 (numbering by the Board)
Is it patentable?
In the decision under appeal, the Examining Division refused the application alleging that the claimed subject-matter did not involve an inventive step, as the distinguishing feature were considered.
The Board identified the following as the distinguishing features:
3.2 Differences
The subject-matter of claim 1 differs thus from the method of D1 in that
– the server generates a barcode (and not the POS terminal) according to the received transaction details from the POS terminal and sends it back to the POS terminal (feature (c)),
– the mobile device transmits to the server the transaction details (and not only the identifier) obtained when decoding the scanned barcode (part of feature (e)),
– the server compares the transaction details received from the POS terminal and those received from the mobile device and only if they correspond, the mobile device is enabled to generate the payment request and the payment transaction can be completed (feature (f) and part of feature (g)).
In the first instance, the Examining Division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present. However, the Board agreed with the applicant when assessing the technical effect:
3.3 Technical effect and technical problem
3.3.1 In the decision under appeal, the examining division assessed the distinguishing features separately, implying that no synergistic effect was present. It went on to conclude that each one them was obvious for the skilled person (see points 1.2 to 1.10.1 of the Reasons for the decision).
3.3.2 The board, however, agrees with the appellant that the distinguishing features provide together a synergistic technical effect and should not be assessed separately.
3.3.3 Generating the barcode according to the transaction details at/by the server and transmitting it back to the POS terminal, ensure that the transaction details which the mobile device receives by scanning the barcode provided by the POS terminal are the same as those which the POS terminal sent to the server. The possibility for the POS server to transmit different transaction details to the server and to the mobile device is thus eliminated.
3.3.4 The examining division argued that this operation did not exclude the possibility that the POS terminal decoded the barcode from the server, modified the transaction details and generated the barcode again, so that the mobile device would receive different/manipulated transaction details (see point 1.10.1 of the Reasons for the impugned decision).
The board agrees to this point. However, according to the following steps of the claimed method, the mobile device transmits the transaction details received from the POS terminal via the barcode to the server and the server compares the transaction details received from the mobile device to those received from the POS terminal.
If a manipulation by/at the POS terminal occurred, the barcode presented to and scanned by the mobile device would not be the same as the barcode transmitted from the server to the POS terminal. Therefore, the transaction details received at the mobile device and sent to the server would not be the same as those sent to the server from the POS terminal. The comparison at the server would show this difference because the transaction details compared at the server would not be the same (they would not “conform” in the terminology of the claims) and so the payment transaction would not be carried out.
Hence, these features together contribute to increasing transaction security by hindering any manipulation by/at the POS terminal.
3.3.5 It is also to be noted that according to the claimed method, only after a positive outcome of the comparison of the payment information at the server is the mobile device enabled to generate and transmit a payment request. This step also contributes to the increased transaction security, as no payment information of the user is transmitted to the server before the integrity of the transaction details is verified.
3.3.6 In the board’s opinion, therefore, the distinguishing features combine together to provide the technical effect of increased transaction security. If follows that the skilled person starting from D1 would be faced with the technical problem of how to increase transaction security.
The Board then assessed if it was obvious to the skilled person:
3.4 Solution, obviousness
3.4.1 In the board’s opinion there is no indication or suggestion in D1 for the skilled person faced with the above identified technical problem to modify the described payment procedure and to arrive at the claimed method without exercising any inventive skills. For example, there is no disclosure in D1 of comparing the received payment information from the mobile device to that received from the POS terminal at the server and the board sees no incentive to introduce any such comparison in any obvious way.
Therefore, the Board found the subject-matter of the claim involves an inventive step.
More information
You can read the full decision here:T 2426/19 of October 11, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.