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!
[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 >> Gelliner Ltd (Patent) [2021] UKIntelP o85921 (25 November 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o85921.html Cite as: [2021] UKIntelP o85921 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The invention relates to a method by which a person can obtain physical cash when an automated teller machine (ATM) is not readily available. The method is a means by which a withdrawer, i.e. in individual wishing to withdraw money as physical cash from their account, can obtain the cash without having to access an ATM. When a withdrawer wishes to withdraw cash, they use a computing device to send a cash request to an application server. The server then sends requests for cash to depositor devices within a set range of the withdrawer device. When the server receives a quote of a cash withdrawal fee for the cash withdrawal from a depositor device it forwards it to the withdrawer device. When the withdrawer device receives the quote, it sends an acceptance of the quote to the application server. The server then sends instruction so that the withdrawer and depositor can meet. When the withdrawer has received the cash from the depositor, messages are sent by the both the withdrawer and the depositor to the application server to confirmation that the cash transfer has been completed. Then electronic funds to the amount of the cash transfer and the fee are debited from the withdrawer-™s account and credited to the depositor-™s electronic account.
On applying the Aerotel/Macrossan 4 step test, the Hearing Officer found that the claimed invention was excluded as a computer program as such and a business method as such. The application was refused under section 18(3).
Full decisionO/859/21 711Kb