T 1749/14 (MOBILE PERSONAL POINT-OF-SALE TERMINAL/MAXIM) of 03.04.2020

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2020:T174914.20200403
Date of decision: 3 April 2020
Case number: T 1749/14
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 09810380.7
IPC class: G06Q 20/00 G07F 7/08
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Distributed to board chairmen (C)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: MOBILE PERSONAL POINT-OF-SALE TERMINAL
Applicant name: Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
Opponent name: -
Board: 3.5.01
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 111(1) (2007)European Patent Convention Art 56 (2007)
Keywords: Inventive step - personalized mobile POS terminal
Inventive step - distinguishing features provide for a technical contribution
Inventive step - no mere automation of constraints imposed by business related aspects
Inventive step - structural and functional modifications of the closest prior art required
Remittal to the department of first instance - (yes)
Catchword: The notional business person might come up with the abstract idea of avoiding the customer having to provide PIN and account information to the merchant.
The invention however requires a new infrastructure, new devices and a new protocol involving technical considerations linked to modified devices and their capabilities as well as security relevant modifications of the transfer of sensitive information using new possibilities achieved by the modifications to the previously known mobile POS infrastructure.
This goes beyond what the notional business person knows and concerns technical implementation details (how to implement) which are more than a straight-forward 1:1 programming of an abstract business idea. (See point 5 of the reasons).
This is in the sphere of the technical expert and subject to the assessment of inventive step (see T 1082/13).
Cited cases: T 1463/11 T 1082/13
Citing cases: T 0550/14 T 1392/20

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The decision under appeal is set aside.

2. The case is remitted to the department of first instance for further prosecution.