T 2217/11 - No business method

T 2217/11
Link



Key points

• The application was refused because the Examining Division found that the claims related to "subject matter excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC",  likely because the claimed invention was considered to be a method of doing business and therefore excluded by Article 52(2)(c) EPC.
• However, the claimed method also recites technical features and therefore is not excluded from patentability, according to the Board. 

IV. Claim 1 reads as follows:

"A method for secure payment via a communication network, the method involving in a payment session three agents, [...]

Reasons for the Decision

3. Patentability

3.1 The Examining Division found that the claims related to "subject matter excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC." No subsection of Article 52(2) EPC was mentioned, but in the light of the comments in the final two paragraphs on page 4 of the Reasons, it would appear that the claimed invention was considered to be a method of doing business, and therefore excluded by Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

3.2 Although methods of doing business are excluded from patentability by Article 52(2)(c) EPC, this is only to the extent to which the application relates to methods of doing business "as such" (Article 52(3) EPC).

In the present case, claim 1 seeks protection for a method for secure payment via a communication network, and the subject-matter is chiefly defined in terms of a sequence of messages exchanged between three agents, the content of the messages and the extent and nature of the encryption used being set out in detail. The subject-matter of the claim does not, therefore, relate to a method of doing business "as such", but rather to the field of secure communication over a network using cryptography, and hence it has a technical character (see e.g. T 789/08, Reasons, point 3.2, first paragraph).

3.3 The Board accepts that claim 1 comprises certain individual features which might be seen as purely related to business, for example transferring by the broker a payment amount to an account of the vendor. This, however, is irrelevant. By virtue of the technical features referred to above, the claimed method is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC and not excluded from patentability under Articles 52(2) and (3) EPC 1973 (see e.g. T 258/03, Points 4.1 to 4.7).

[...]

4.6 The subject-matter of claim 1 is therefore judged to involve an inventive step within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC and Article 56 EPC 1973.