Page 418 of [2009] 1 All SA 381 (T)
[118] At 8 it is stated:
"Initiating terminal 110 preferably permits the transmission of debit or credit card information with the associated PIN
encrypted and encoded to ensure security as to the debit or credit card information."
The description continues at 9 as follows:
"Normally, the customer has already inserted a card to activate ATM 110. ATM 110 of the present invention preferably
assumes that the card corresponds to the financial institution from which the customer will pay for the purchase. ATM
110 preferably inquires whether the customer wishes to have the funds taken from the customer's checking account,
savings account, etc. The customer makes the desired selection. System 100 transmits the request to purchase
prepaid telephone services, together with the financial account from which the customer desires to have funds
electronically withdrawn to pay for such purchase, to central terminal 140."
[119] Other features of the computer systems and methods delineated in the specification include a card data input
capability for reading magnetic stripes and cardholder authentication through a PIN (at 10). The input of the
data also initiates a standard transaction message. It seems a matter of undeniable logic, therefore, that
before a transaction is concluded, remote identification of the subscriber occurs through use of the card and
PIN. Integer (b) of claim 1 of the patent in suit is thus disclosed.
[120] Does the method in the EDS patent include verifying subscriber details with reference to data in a database?
Claims 5, 10, 11 and 12 of the EDS patent envisage the central terminal interacting with an existing database
in order to effect the financial aspects of the transaction. First off, the central terminal seeks authorisation for
the transaction. Claim 5 of the EDS patent provides for a ". . . system for purchase of prepaid telephone
services of Claim 1, wherein said central terminal journals said transaction after obtaining authorisation for
said request". Claim 10 makes clear that one of the steps of the method is "obtaining financial authorisation
for said request by a central terminal"; claim 11 includes "the step of electronically debiting a financial account
for the price of such purchase before said step of printing of a receipt"; and claim 12 adds the obviously
integral step "for receiving input of a designation of a specified financial account from which to electronically
debit the price of such purchase".
[121] The practical workings of the subscriber verification are explained more fully in the EDS specification as
follows:
"Initiating terminal 110 determines that the subject transaction requires authorisation and sends a request for
authorization to central terminal 140, thereby entering the next stage of the requesting transaction. While various
implementations will occur to those skilled in the art, central terminal 140 preferably includes switch 145,
authorisation unit 150, suspended journal files 170, and modular device handler 155 running on a Tandembased
platform for realtime processing, a SUN 2000 workstation for relational database 175 and MIS journal files 160, and
an ESA9000 IBM mainframe for offline (batch) processing, financial records maintenance, research, and reporting."
It continues:
"Central terminal 140 preferably has the appropriate linkages to debit card networks and credit card authorisation
points to authenticate the card and the account information belonging to the customer desiring to make the purchase.
Among the information provided to the authorisation agent is the
Page 419 of [2009] 1 All SA 381 (T)
request for authorisation for the principal amount corresponding to the desired level of prepaid telephone services
selected by the customer (referred herein as 'the principal'), together with the appropriate convenience or service
fee, if any."
[122] While it seems that the subscriber database envisaged in the EDS patent would not be a part of the system's
own platform, the capability to access the data, in what the experts referred to as "a relational database",
sufficiently discloses integer (c) of claim 1 of the patent in suit, which speaks generally and abstractly of
"verifying subscriber details with reference to . . . 'a subscriber database'". The relational database is a
database in which details of subscribers are stored. Authentication of the card and the account information of
a customer amounts to "verifying subscriber details" stored in a subscriber database. Integer (c) of claim 1 of
the patent in suit is accordingly disclosed. To the extent that there are indications in claim 15 (integers (b), (c)
and (d)) of the patent in suit that the contemplated database should form part of the system's own platform, I
do not consider such (if it is indeed the case), to be a real difference leading to the conclusion that a
substantially different process is described. The housing of the database on one platform or another is neither
here nor there; the essence of the integer is the IT capability to access and process that data; and such
characteristics are contained in the prior EDS patent.
[123] Claim 6 of the EDS patent makes it plain that the transmission of the data by the central terminal to the
initiating terminal includes a PIN and such data includes instructions to access the prepaid value (claim 7). I
agree with the defendants that the PIN referred to is an enabling code which is provided to the subscriber if
sufficient funds or credit exist in the referenced account. Hence the enabling code is selectively provided to
the subscriber with the result that integer (d) of claim 1 of the patent in suit is disclosed. Likewise, it is
manifestly clear that when the PIN is fed by the subscriber into the network the subscriber will be provided
with airtime allowing communication on the network. Integer (e) of claim 1 is accordingly also disclosed.
[124] In light of the above, and none of the other integers being in issue, the patent in suit must be held to have
been anticipated by the EDS patent as well.
Obviousness: lack of an inventive step
[125] It remains to consider the question of obviousness. Strictly speaking, having found grounds for invalidity and