T 1327/22 (Selecting a payment method/CURVE UK) 19-11-2025

1. Main request

1.1 The invention in claim 1 of the main request relates to changing the payment method using a consolidated payment device (CPD), such as a card or mobile phone which allows payment with multiple payment methods (see paragraph [0004]), after a transaction has been finalised. Firstly, a server (110 in Figure 1) receives a first transaction request from the CPD (50) indicating a first payment method. Upon authorisation - i.e. checking that there are sufficient funds on the first payment method - the transaction is finalised, presumably by the server although this is not specified. The server receives a reselection request indicating a second payment method, presumably from the CPD although again this is not specified. In response, the transaction is authorised using the second payment method, again presumably by the server, and a cancel and refund process is initiated for the first payment method.

1.2 On appeal, claim 1 was amended by replacing the term "reselection request" with "transaction request" in the second "authorizing" feature. This amendment overcomes the examining division's objection under Article 123(2) EPC in point 2.1 of the communication of 15 November 2021.

1.3 The examining division considered that claim 1 lacked novelty over D1 (US 2011/191149). The Board, however, agrees with the appellant that D1 does not disclose the steps of finalising the transaction request for the first payment method and subsequently initiating a cancel and refund process for this payment method. In D1, the customer may change payment method after the transaction has occurred at the POS, but in this scenario, the payment to the retailer is provided by the financial institution without debiting the customer's account until the time has elapsed for the customer to choose a payment method. This is not strictly the same as the cancel and refund in claim 1.

1.4 However, the Board shares the examining division's view expressed in the same communication that first finalising the transaction using the first payment method and subsequently refunding the paid amount is a financial i.e. non-technical matter which does not contribute to inventive step under the "Comvik approach" (T 641/00 - Two identities/COMVIK). Thus, in line with the second headnote in COMVIK, this rule is given as part of the framework of the technical problem as a requirement to implement. The Board agrees with the examining division that the claim does not specify any technical implementation means going beyond the use of a computer. Thus, the Board considers that it would have been obvious for the skilled person to implement the non-technical requirement on the computer system in D1, using standard computer means.

1.5 The appellant argued that the claim included several technical features for carrying out the underlying business activity. In particular, the data carrier had to be configured to:

receive, process and authorise a transaction request in respect of a first payment method; finalise and debit payment from an authorised first payment method;

receive and process a reselection request denoting a second payment method for the transaction amount; check and authorise the reselection transaction using a second payment method;

and, most importantly, cancel and refund/reimburse the original transaction amount to the first (original) payment method.

The invention allowed the user of a consolidated payment device to "go back in time" and vary the payment method used for a particular registered transaction to a different payment method, and to have the transaction amount refunded to the original payment method. In the appellant's view, this was a technical effect that contributed to inventive step.

1.6 The Board, however, agrees with the examining division that the means for sending, receiving, and processing transaction requests, including the reselection request, is disclosed in D1. D1 indeed allows the user to "go back in time" by changing the payment method after the transaction has taken place at the POS. The difference is merely in how this is solved financially. Instead of giving the customer a credit until he has indicated the final payment method as in D1, the claimed invention debits the customers account and later refunds the amount. As stated above, in the Board's view, this is not technical and is part of the requirements given to the skilled person to implement. The implementation itself might require technical modifications to the payment system, but these are not specified and the mere definition of means that achieve this is self-evident.

1.7 For these reasons, the Board judges that claim 1 lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

2. First auxiliary request

2.1 The first auxiliary request adds to claim 1 that:

i) The transaction request is finalised for both the first and second payment method and includes deducting funds from the first and second payment method, respectively;

ii) The transaction request has a corresponding transaction amount which is deducted from, and refunded to, the payment method(s); and

iii) The reselection request is associated with the transaction request.

2.2 The examining division considered that this was added matter (Article 123(2) EPC) as the originally filed application failed to disclose deducting funds from either payment method.

2.3 The Board agrees with the appellant that, although the wording "deducting funds" is not explicitly used in the application as filed, it is implicit that funds are deducted in the sense that the respective payment method is charged. A refund on the first payment method implies that the amount is first charged. Similarly, it is clear that the transaction amount is paid using the second method, which involves charging this payment method. Therefore, the Board does not see a problem with added matter.

2.4 However, the first auxiliary request does not add any technical features which contribute to inventive step. The appellant has not argued any further technical effects or advantages of the first auxiliary request. Therefore, the reasons for the main request apply also to claim 1 of the first auxiliary request.

2.5 For these reasons, the Board holds that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request lacks an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).