BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Net1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o05812 (13 February 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o05812.html
Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o05812, [2012] UKIntelP o5812

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Net1 Ueps Technologies, Inc. (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o05812 (13 February 2012)

Patent decision

BL number
O/058/12
Concerning rights in
GB 0910301.1
Hearing Officer
Mrs S E Chalmers
Decision date
13 February 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Net1 Ueps Technologies, Inc.
Provisions discussed
PA 1977, Section 1(1) and 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused), Novelty
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application is concerned with avoiding identity fraud when conducting electronic financial transactions using magnetic strip or smart cards such as a credit or debit card. According to the invention, verification of the card user’s identity and account(s) is carried out by an independent third party rather than directly with the relevant bank or other financial institution. In use, the user will sign up to the verification service by having his cards read to provide his account details and having his fingerprint scanned to provide an identifier. Following checking of his identity and his accounts, his name, account numbers and fingerprint are then encrypted and stored. When the user wishes to buy something, he will swipe his card through a card reader and scan his fingerprint. These are then encrypted, sent to the verification service and compared with the stored account and fingerprint to confirm his identity before the transaction can go ahead.

The Hearing Officer found that the invention claimed was novel but declined to make a finding on whether it involved an inventive step. She went on to apply the four step test set out in Aerotel/Macrossan and found that the contribution made by the invention fell within excluded fields, namely to methods for doing business and to a computer program as such. The application was refused.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o05812


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o05812.html