one of which is to require a voucher PIN."
Additionally at 45 the specification states:
"The system comprises a platform capable of communicating remotely with the device and a database server having
a database containing information relating to a group of permitted devices defined according to predetermined
criteria. The platform is accordingly programmed to extract data from the database which relates to a device with
which it is communicably linked in use, so as to establish the standing of such device in relation to the platform,
receive and process a signal emanating from the device, allocate a required resource to such device, and
communicate advice of such allocation to the device."
[104] These descriptions are in turn recited in the claims of the ITouch patent. Claims 4, 5 and 7 read respectively:
"4.
A method according to any one of the preceding claims comprising the step of forming a database containing
information on the group of permitted client devices.
Page 413 of [2009] 1 All SA 381 (T)
5.
A method according to claim 4 wherein the database includes information providing unique identityrelated
information in respect of each permitted device.
. . .
7.
A method according to claim 6 comprising further steps of capturing data relating to a banking account
associated with the client device, generating a debit order file in a format required by a participating bank,
sending the file to such bank electronically and receiving a result file from the bank reporting on each
transaction."
Claims 3031 portray a system comprising a database server connectable and in communication with a
platform having a database containing information related to a group of permitted devices and wherein the
platform is programmed to extract from the database data relating to a device in order to establish the
standing of the device with respect to (for the purposes of ) the allocation of the resource.
[105] Considering the stance taken by the plaintiff in his evidence, it would seem that the parties are in agreement
that checking the caller's MSISDN, so as to establish whether the calling device is being operated by a
permitted caller (at 6 of the specification and claim 1(e) of the ITouch patent), constitutes "remotely
identifying the subscriber" and thus that the ITouch patent describes integer ( b) of claim 1 of the patent in
suit. The entering of a mailbox number and PIN by the caller in the first instance to cause the platforms to
determine whether the device is a permitted device (claim 1(e) of ITouch) and secondly for forming a
database (claim 4 of ITouch) amounts to "verifying subscriber details with reference��to the subscriber details
stored in a subscriber data base". The subscriber database in claim 4 of the ITouch patent is quite evidently
a database which includes information providing unique identityrelated information in respect of each
permitted device with the purpose of verifying subscriber details. Integer (c) of claim 1 of the patent in suit is
accordingly disclosed in the ITouch patent. Integer ( d) of claim 15 of the patent in suit is similarly disclosed by
virtue of the ITouch platform being capable of communicating with permitted devices after determining the
status of the device through the verification means and database of unique identityrelated information
included on the platform.
[106] Seeing that the plaintiff has restricted his defence to the claim of anticipation by the ITouch patent to the
alleged nondisclosure of integer (c) of claim 1 and integer (d) of claim 15 (which I have just found is not in fact
the case), he accepts that the integers of all the other claims are indeed disclosed. That being so, the
conclusion is inescapable: the ITouch patent anticipated the patent in suit.
Anticipation by the Miller patent
[107] It is next necessary to decide whether the Miller patent has anticipated the patent in suit, the priority date of
which is 1997. In terms of its specification, the "invention relates to a method for electronically vending,
distributing, recharging and/or replenishing prepaid value, and a vending machine as well as a network for
use therein". The object of the invention is stated to be the provision of "a novel method of electronically
Page 414 of [2009] 1 All SA 381 (T)
vending, distributing, recharging and/or replenishing prepaid value and a vending machine for use in such
method". In the summary it is stated:
"According to a first aspect of the invention there is provided a method for electronically vending prepaid value
including the steps of offering prepaid value for sale to a purchaser on an electronic network, the network enabling
communication electronically between the purchaser, an independent financial institution and computerized managing
means for managing the sale of prepaid values."
The Miller patent comprises 11 claims.
[108] The plaintiff narrowed the scope of dispute in his rule 36(9)(b) statement by limiting himself to the contention
that the Miller patent did not disclose a method or system by which a subscriber is remotely identified (integer
(b) of claim 1); nor a subscriber database or a database which includes a plurality of subscribers (integer (c) of
claim 1 and integer (b) of claim 15).
[109] As I read the claims of the Miller patent, there is no explicit disclosure of a method or system by which a
subscriber is remotely identified. However, claim 1 is extensive in its reach. It reads:
"A method for electronically providing prepaid values including the steps of providing prepaid values to purchasers by
means of an electronic managing means for managing the provision of prepaid values electronically to a network