EP1754204A1

EP1754204A1 - Device and method for checking banknotes

Info

Publication number: EP1754204A1
Application number: EP05741234A
Authority: EP
Inventors: Norbert Holl; Wolfgang Rapf; Helmut Karl Reinisch; Dieter Stein
Original assignee: Giesecke and Devrient GmbH
Current assignee: Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology GmbH
Priority date: 2004-05-18
Filing date: 2005-05-17
Publication date: 2007-02-21
Also published as: RU2381560C2; US8245831B2; US20080283451A1; CN101027697A; DE102004024620A1; RU2006144805A; WO2005114596A1

Abstract

The invention relates to a device and a method for checking banknotes, whereby measured values for the checked banknotes are obtained and a classification of the banknotes by analysis of the measured values in several checking steps is carried out. The classification differentiates between at least the classification categories of false, presumed-false, and genuine banknotes or acceptable and redistributable and, at least in one checking step of the differentiation of whether the checked banknote belongs to a given classification category, a linking of several measured values is generated and said linking parameter is compared with a corresponding tolerance range on the analysis.

Description

Device and method for checking banknotes

The invention relates to a device and a method for checking banknotes.

From EP 0 706 698 AI, for example, an automatic machine is known in which the entered banknotes are checked for authenticity and readability. In order to accept as many genuine banknotes as possible and to avoid issuing counterfeits as far as possible, an entered banknote is only retained as genuine in a first test step if the measured values are from one or more measurement parameters, such as, for. B. the dimension, the spectrum or the magnetic properties of the banknote, all lie within the first associated acceptance ranges. All other banknotes are issued directly from the deposit device. The retained accepted banknotes are then subjected to a second test step, in which it is checked whether the measurement parameters are all within the associated second acceptance ranges, which are chosen to be narrower than the respective first acceptance ranges. The banknotes which have passed both the first and the second test step and are therefore even more likely to be genuine are classified as reusable and stored separately from the other banknotes in the machine.

A disadvantage of this system is that an optimal classification result cannot be obtained in all cases.

Proceeding from this, the object of the present invention is to provide a device and a method for checking banknotes which allow an effective checking of banknotes, in particular in ATMs. This object is solved by the subject matter of the independent claims. Preferred embodiments describe the dependent claims.

By thus classifying banknotes into several categories and preferably only in some of the test steps for deciding whether the checked banknote corresponds to one of the given classification categories, a combination of several measured values is formed and e.g. is taken into account in the evaluation by comparison with an associated tolerance range, a meaningful test with increased test quality can be carried out in ATMs and with a reduced effort for adaptation of the tolerance ranges.

This approach is particularly advantageous if it is classified at least into the categories "false", "suspected of forgery" and "real" and / or the classification is made at least into the categories "acceptable" and "reimbursable", as this is the case in many countries a further requirement is for use in cash deposit machines and / or combined cash deposit and cash withdrawal machines, so-called recycling machines, in which a customer can deposit cash in the machine during a transaction, which is credited to an account assigned to the payer and in a recycling machine can be paid out to another customer in a subsequent transaction.

Although it can be provided that all deposited banknotes retained in an automated teller machine are classified as "accepted", it can also be provided according to a particularly preferred variant that of those retained banknotes only those banknotes which are also classified as "accepted" assessable "and thus (if necessary provisionally) to be credited to an account assigned to the payer.

In a test step, e.g. To decide whether a banknote should be classified as incorrect, a link size obtained from the measured values of several sensor modules of the ATM are taken into account in the evaluation, while in another test step, e.g. To decide whether a banknote should be classified as suspect or genuine, at least some or all of the linked measurement values are evaluated individually. The comparison of the individual measured values with the associated tolerance ranges e.g. when checking for the category "real" enables evaluation with a higher accuracy than is necessary, for example, in the case of checking for the category "false", in which a comparison with only one combined variable, i.e. the link size of several measured values can be sufficiently precise.

Preferably, during the test, test steps are carried out first to decide whether a banknote is to be classified as wrong and only if it is decided that the banknote is not to be classified as wrong, further test steps are carried out to differentiate between genuine and suspected counterfeit banknotes ,

According to this procedure, therefore, not all possible checking steps are carried out before a decision is made as to which of the several classification categories a banknote to be checked is actually assigned to. Only and only if it is checked and ruled out that the banknote is to be categorized as incorrect are further test steps carried out which allow a distinction to be made between genuine and suspected counterfeit banknotes. This procedure of carrying out the check for the category "false" before the check for the category "suspected of forgery" versus "real" has the advantage that there is a reduced computing requirement, since a greater computing effort is required to determine a banknote as either genuine or It is preferable to carry out additional test steps that suggest the category "no recognized banknote" before checking for the category "suspected of being counterfeit" versus "genuine".

As already mentioned, the solution according to the invention also allows, in a particularly effective manner, to meet the criteria which are set in certain countries for the certification of combined deposit and withdrawal machines, so-called recycling machines, in which certain banknotes deposited in previous transactions are used in subsequent ones Transactions may again be issued from the same machine. Such recycling machines have long been known and exemplary z. B. in US 6,290,070 or US 5,173,590.

For example, regarding the euro area, there are guidelines issued by the European Central Bank on May 24, 2002, which require that a deposited banknote be classified in one of the four categories "no banknote" (category 1), "false banknote" (category 2), and "suspected counterfeiters" Banknote "(category 3) and" real banknote "(category 4) must be classified, whereby, for example, banknotes recognized as" false "do not have to be re-issued, but have to be kept in the machine without credit for the payer. The real banknotes with good condition, the so-called fit banknotes (category 4a) can be paid out from the machine again to another payer in a subsequent transaction, while the real banknotes with poorer condition, the so-called Unfit banknotes (category 4b), cannot be paid out again in Table 1 below lists such requirements for the classification of banknotes deposited in an ATM:

Table 1:

The distinction between banknotes classified as false, suspected of being forgery and genuinely categorized consists in the security with which the banknotes have been checked as genuine. A banknote classified as "false" (category 2 in Table 1) has less security than being genuine as a banknote classified as "suspect" (category 3 in Table 1) and a suspected counterfeit banknote is less secure than being genuine as " genuine "classified banknote (category 4 in Table 1). The categories are preferably set so that not only all genuine banknotes, but also as many contaminated banknotes as possible are classified in category 4.

In contrast to a banknote recognized and categorized as "wrong", in which, for example, the printed image and the format are recognized, but other (magnetic, electrical, optical) authenticity properties are not within acceptable tolerance ranges, they are classified in the "no banknote" category "(Category 1 in Table 1), for example, if the tested document cannot be recognized as one of the possible banknotes because, for example, the wrong currency has been checked, the wrong printed image or format has been measured or no recognition is possible due to a multiple deduction with overlapping banknotes. Furthermore, the evaluation methods as described in DE 10029051 AI by the applicant can preferably be used. For example, at least two different authenticity classes, each with one or more authenticity criteria, can be provided, the individual authenticity classes differing from one another in at least one authenticity criterion. For the authenticity check, an authenticity class is selected from the different authenticity classes and the document is checked based on the authenticity criteria of the selected authenticity class. The selected authenticity class is assigned to the document if its authenticity criteria are met by the document. The authenticity criteria are, for example, threshold values or intervals for the authenticity features used for the check. For example, optical, magnetic, electrical or physical features can be used as authenticity features, for example optical reflection, transmission or emission, magnetic permeability, electrical conductivity, dielectric constant, thickness and format of the document as well as watermarks.

Different authenticity criteria will thus be summarized in the authenticity check of documents in several authenticity classes, the authenticity requirements being different depending on the authenticity class, since each authenticity class generally has a different number of authenticity criteria and / or different strict authenticity criteria. If, for example, an authenticity class with high authenticity requirements is selected, for example with very high threshold values for optical reflection or transmission, the authenticity of documents that meet the authenticity criteria of this selected authenticity class can be affirmed with high probability. Documents that do not meet the authenticity criteria of a selected authenticity class can be checked using other selected authenticity classes with lower authenticity requirements are checked, for example lower threshold values, which means that their authenticity can be affirmed with a correspondingly lower probability. Overall, the authenticity property, ie the measured authenticity features, of the documents to be checked is divided into different authenticity classes. This differentiation of the result of the authenticity check makes it possible to determine those documents which are more likely to be genuine than the authenticity checking methods according to the prior art, as a result of which the reliability of the authenticity determination is increased overall. At the same time, the remaining documents can still be checked with the usual - generally "less stringent" - authenticity criteria, which means that the proportion of genuine documents that are not recognized as genuine remains low.

In a further development of the method it is provided that the condition and / or the denomination of the document is determined and then the authenticity class is selected depending on the condition and / or the denomination of the document. The denomination is the value or currency of the document to be checked. The condition of the document is generally given by condition features, such as degree of soiling, limpness, damage, such as cracks, holes or imperfections in the printed image, as well as foreign bodies, such as adhesive strips. For example, the authenticity class can be selected during the authenticity check of a document depending on the degree of soiling of the document, whereby clean and undamaged documents with much stricter authenticity criteria, for example higher threshold values, can be checked than heavily soiled or damaged documents. This significantly increases the reliability of counterfeit detection of clean or slightly dirty documents. All in all, this condition-dependent authenticity check makes documents very easy identify good condition with high reliability as real or false. Since only the checking of documents in very good condition is tightened, the proportion of genuine documents not recognized as genuine remains low.

Another aspect of the invention is the use of the idea of DE 10029051 AI that part of the authenticity criteria used for the authenticity check is determined on the basis of forged documents. As a result, the authenticity check with specified authenticity criteria is expanded by an additional authenticity check with additional authenticity criteria, the additional authenticity criteria being determined on the basis of forged documents. The additional authenticity criteria are generally determined in a separate process, e.g. in specially designed facilities, in which forged documents are examined in particular for characteristic differences to real documents. From the differences found, additional authenticity criteria are determined, which are then fed to the authenticity checking process. Documents are still checked against fixed authenticity criteria and classified as genuine if the authenticity criteria are met. In addition, forgeries can be recognized if the checked documents do not meet the additional authenticity criteria determined on known forgeries, which preferably relate to characteristic differences between a forgery found and real documents. In this way, increased reliability in the detection of counterfeits, in particular with regard to known counterfeits and in circulation, is achieved.

It should be particularly emphasized that the subjects of the dependent claims and the individual features of the description can also be used advantageously regardless of the subject of the main claims. Further advantages and special embodiments of the present invention are explained and described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying figures. It shows

Figure 1 is a schematic view of a recycling machine according to a first embodiment of the present invention and

FIG. 2 shows a schematic flow diagram to illustrate the present invention.

FIG. 1 shows a schematic view of an example of a combined deposit and withdrawal machine 1 according to the invention, which is also called recycling machine 1 for short.

In a manner known per se, an externally accessible input compartment 3 is integrated in the housing 2 of the recycling machine 1, into which a stack of banknotes BN to be deposited can be entered during a deposit transaction. The bank notes BN entered into the input compartment 3 are separated and transported by means of a transport system 7 through a sensor unit 5, in which the authenticity and the condition of the bank notes BN are checked. The evaluation of the sensor results takes place in an EDV-based evaluation unit 6 connected to the sensor unit 5 via a data line 8, which can also be a component of the sensor unit 5 itself. Depending on the results of the evaluation unit 6, switches are controlled in the transport system 7, which either place the checked banknote BN into an externally accessible output compartment 4 for unrecognized banknotes, one of several cassettes 9a-c for banknotes BN accepted as genuine, or one of possibly several Storage boxes 10 for wrong or suspected counterfeit banknotes. The cassettes 9a-c and the filing boxes 10 are not accessible from the outside. The checked banknotes are stored in the cassettes 9a-c according to their nominal value, separately from the banknotes BN already stored therein.

In the case of a payment transaction, the bank notes BN to be paid out are separated from the cassettes 9a-c and output into the output compartment 4 by means of the transport system 7. In Figure 1, the possible transport routes of the banknotes BN are symbolized by arrows.

In a recycling machine 1, banknotes deposited by a customer can thus be retained during a deposit transaction and credited to an account assigned to the customer. In addition, in the case of previous payment transactions in the same recycling machine 1, banknotes retained in subsequent payment transactions, also to another customer, can be issued again and the amounts paid out can be debited from an account assigned to this customer.

The recycling machine 1 is particularly distinguished by the sensor unit 5 with the associated evaluation unit 6. The sensor unit 5 comprises a plurality of sensor modules 5a-f, which measure different physical and / or chemical properties of a deposited bank note BN. An image sensor module 5a, a magnetism sensor module 5b, a conductivity sensor module 5c, a UV sensor module 5d and an IR sensor module 5e are used as sensor modules 5a-f, for example, to determine the format, the printed image, the magnetism, the conductivity, the Lightening freedom, the degree of soiling and other condition (holes, tears, dog ears, etc.) of the checked banknotes. Another independent idea of the present invention is to also measure the luminescence radiation, particularly preferably both fluorescence and phosphorescence radiation, of feature substances introduced into the paper or the printing ink in a recycling machine 1, as described, for example, in EP 1 223 208 AI or EP 1 241 021 A2 are described. The intensities and / or intensity ratios of the emission bands or lines and / or their rise and / or decay times are preferably measured in an additional sensor module 5f of the sensor unit 5.

Although not limited to this, preferably not only the paid-in banknotes, but also the banknotes paid out in a payout transaction are checked again for number, authenticity and / or nominal value. This can be done either with a separate sensor unit or with a common sensor unit 5, as is shown by way of example in FIG. 1, in which both the paid-in and the paid-out banknotes pass through the sensor unit 5 and into the one that also serves for the manual removal of banknotes Issue Tray 3, for example can be constructed as described in DE10210689A1.

It is possible to measure the luminescence radiation in the sensor module 5f both of banknotes BN deposited during a current deposit transaction and of banknotes to be paid out during a current payment transaction. However, the luminecez measurements are preferably carried out only for the banknotes BN deposited during a current deposit transaction and not for the banknotes BN to be withdrawn during a current payment transaction, which at least partially originate from previous deposit transactions, whereby the evaluation of the sensor signals of the sensor unit 5 can be accelerated. The n measured values M _j to M _n recorded by these sensor modules 5a-f are fed to the evaluation device 6. The measurements of the individual sensor modules 5a-f can also be carried out in a time and / or location-resolved manner.

The measured values M ₁ to M _n supplied in this way of a bank note BN to be checked are then evaluated by the evaluation unit 6 in several test steps in order to be able to obtain statements about the authenticity and the condition of the bank note BN. The deposited banknotes BN are classified according to the categories shown in Table 1. This means that a paid-in banknote BN is classified into one of the categories 1 (not recognized), 2 (false), 3 (suspected of being forgery) or 4 (genuine), the banknotes BN classified as genuine depending on their condition being classified into categories 4a ( fit) or 4b (unfit), ie assessed for re-payability.

The e.g. Banknotes not recognized due to double deduction are immediately returned to the payer in the output compartment 4, the banknotes categorized as false or suspected of forgery are stored separately in the storage boxes 10 and the real banknotes are separated into the cassettes 9a-c according to their denomination and condition , so that the Category 4a banknotes can be paid out to other depositors in good condition in subsequent withdrawal transactions.

However, it should be noted that in the classification, for example, a distinction is also made according to banknotes with good condition, which can be manually re-issued at a bank counter, for example, and banknotes with very good condition, so-called ATM-Fit banknotes, which can also be made without increased risk of traffic jams can be issued again in a machine. FIG. 2 illustrates in a simplified manner an example of a sequence of the classification of a paid-in bank note BN, which is designed as a sequential check of the existence of the individual categories. Thus, for example, first one or more test steps marked with S1 are carried out, which decide whether the checked document can be recognized as bank note BN at all. For this purpose, for example, measured values of the image sensor module are evaluated in order to check the format and / or the printed image and / or the nominal value of the banknote. Furthermore, a multiple deduction measurement can also be carried out, for example, in order to detect the presence of overlapping bank notes. This multiple deduction measurement can also be carried out, for example, by evaluating optical as well as magnetic measured values. If the measured values or quantities derived therefrom are not within specified tolerance ranges, for example because the format is wrong or the nominal value cannot be clearly determined, the banknote is classified as category 1 and, after passing through the sensor unit 5, is re-output in the output compartment 4.

In order to assess whether a measured value or another quantity lies within a predetermined tolerance range in the sense of the present invention, the measured value is e.g. compared with an upper and / or lower threshold.

Only if it is determined in the check step S1 that the bank note BN to be checked is not a category 1 bank note are one or more further check steps S2 carried out to check whether the bank note BN is a category 2, ie an incorrect bank note. These can be banknotes, for example, in which properties such as the print image and format are correct, properties that can be copied well with conventional color copies, but other authenticity properties, such as measured values. te about optical, in particular IR or UV properties, magnetism or electrical properties or quantities derived therefrom are outside of predetermined wide tolerance ranges.

Only if it is determined in test step S2 that the bank note BN to be tested is also not a category 2 bank note and has thus been assessed as "acceptable", ie capable of acceptance and value-setting, are one or more further test steps S3 carried out to check whether the banknote BN is a banknote falling into category 3, ie a suspected counterfeit, in which, for example, the above-mentioned or other measured values are derived from optical, in particular IR or UV properties, magnetism or electrical properties or the above-mentioned or others In addition to sophisticated forgeries, this category 3 can also include genuine banknotes in which at least some of the measured values fall outside the banknotes that are not soiled or normally soiled, for example due to heavy soiling usual tolerance ranges n.

Finally, all remaining banknotes that could not be classified in any of categories 1 to 3 and therefore belong to category 4 are checked for their condition and thus for their ability to be re-issued from machine 1. For this purpose, one or more test steps S4 determine, for example, whether the degree of soiling of the banknote BN and / or the number, distribution or size of holes, cracks, dog ears or the like are within predetermined tolerance ranges. If so, the bank note BN is classified as reusable, ie category 4a, in a cassette 9a-c corresponding to the nominal value and can be reissued in subsequent transactions. Otherwise the banknote will be non-reusable, ie category rie 4b, classified and retained separately in machine 1 and not issued again from machine 1 in subsequent transactions.

According to a further idea, it can be provided that different properties are tested in different test steps for classifying the banknote. In this sense, preferably no measured value or properties are tested in both test steps. For example, an evaluation of the magnetism or infrared measurement values can only be carried out in test step S3 to distinguish between suspected counterfeit and genuine banknotes BN.

Furthermore, it can be provided that when a bank note BN is checked, the measured values for a bank note property are only compared with a single associated tolerance range in order to decide whether the measured value is assessed as positive or negative. For a test step z. B. about the acceptability of the banknote or in the example mentioned e.g. in the test step S2, z. B. only a smaller number of positive measurement tests are required than for a subsequent test step, e.g. for the test step S3 to differentiate the authenticity categories 3 or 4. If ten different measured values are assumed in total, only four measured value tests, for example, have to be positive in order for the banknote in the device to be acceptable, i.e. Assess category 3 or 4, while at least six positive measurement tests are necessary to confirm the banknote as genuine, i.e. judged as Category 4.

In an analogous manner, e.g. B. for the test step on the acceptability of the banknote, a larger number of negative measurement tests are required than for a subsequent test step. Assuming a total of ten different measured values, seven measured value tests, for example, must be negative for the banknote in the machine 1 as Certainly wrong, i.e. to judge category 2, while four to six negative measurement tests are necessary in order to assess the banknote as suspected of forgery, i.e. as category 3, while no negative measurement test may occur to make the banknote as clearly genuine, i.e. as category 4 judge.

In this case, measurement values for different measurement properties and in particular also from different sensor modules 5a-f are preferably taken into account.

In this method, a different weighting, e.g. B. be carried out according to a different weighting factor of the individual measured value tests in order to be able to distinguish important from less important measurements in the evaluation. For the assessment of the reimbursement or in step S2 of the check for category 2, z. B. again a higher total number of points is required, corresponding to the sum of the points of all positive and / or negative measured values than for the assessment of the acceptability of the banknote or in step S3 of the check for category 3.

It should be emphasized that in this but also in the other exemplary embodiments instead of the measured values, variables derived therefrom can always be used in the evaluation.

Furthermore, in the sense of the previous exemplary embodiment, the measured values or the quantities derived therefrom can also be differentiated into different importance categories in accordance with the measurement of a specific physical property of the banknote. For example, the measured values have easily falsified properties, such as optical or electrical measured values recorded in the visible frequency range, categorized as less important than, for example, the optical or magnetic measured values recorded in the invisible frequency range, which are more difficult to falsify. In this case, for example, the measured values of the individual sensor modules 5a-f can also be evaluated as being of different importance. For a test step, such as the acceptance test of a banknote or in step S2 of the check for category 2, z. B. only the positive measurement of a less important property is sufficient, while at least one important property must also be tested positively for readability or in step S3 of checking for category 3.

Instead of comparing individual measured values individually with predetermined tolerance ranges, alternatively, according to another idea of the present invention, a combination of several measured values is formed during the evaluation and this combination variable is compared with its own tolerance range during the evaluation of at least one test step. The combination of the several measured values can e.g. be a multi-parametric mathematical function which e.g. forms the minimum and / or maximum and / or an average and / or the ratio and / or a linear combination of the measured values to be linked. In one of the several test steps, z. B. with the help of fuzzy logic, a link size of several measured values is formed and compared with an associated tolerance range. This linkage variable will preferably be a derived variable which is derived from measured values of different physical or chemical properties or different sensor modules 5a-f, both e.g. depends on both the magnetism and the optical properties of the tested banknote.

Such a linking variable linking several different measured variables is preferably used in test step S2 for differentiation the wrong of the counterfeit banknotes are used, while in a second test step S3, ie to differentiate the suspect counterfeit from the real banknotes BN, the individual non-linked measurement values or the quantities derived therefrom are again individually compared with the associated tolerance ranges.

This approach has the advantage that a better quality check is made possible, so that the acceptance check associated with lower requirements for the clear determination of the authenticity of the banknotes or the check for category 2 can be carried out more easily than the check to be carried out with a high degree of certainty actual authenticity and / or reproducibility, ie the examination for category 3 or 4.

According to yet another idea of the present invention, a correlation of several measured values to one another is checked in one of the test steps, for example by B. a ratio formation of several measured values is carried out. If measured values of the same banknote property and / or the same sensor module 5a-f are evaluated, this can e.g. When measuring magnetism at different points on the banknote area, it is not that the absolute values of the magnetism at different points are compared with an associated tolerance range, but at least in one of the test steps it is only checked whether the ratio of the measured magnetism values at different points in a predetermined tolerance range, which is characteristic of real banknotes.

Furthermore, it can additionally or alternatively be provided that in one test step a measurement value is normalized by at least one other measurement value, which is preferably obtained from another banknote property measurement and / or another sensor module 5a-f comes. So z. B. an optical measurement value that is particularly characteristic of the authenticity, for example recorded in the invisible frequency range, or a magnetic measurement value can be standardized by another measurement value that is characteristic of the state. In one of the test steps, for example, the measured values of the magnetic sensor module can be standardized depending on the pressure intensity in order to be able to take into account the condition of the banknote, for example, which can lead to a reduction in the magnetism measured values for washed-out banknotes, for example.

Furthermore, it can be provided that in a test step, e.g. step S2, only the pure presence of a banknote property is checked, while in a second check step associated with higher demands on the accuracy of the authenticity check, e.g. the step S3, the exact location or structure of the banknote property is determined. Here, e.g. checked whether the distribution of the magnetic substances in the banknote paper corresponds to the expected distribution.

In this sense, the different type of test in two test steps can also consist, for example, in that in a first test step it is determined whether a banknote has a predetermined spatial coding of a magnetic, optical or electrical property, for example. This means that it is checked, for example, whether the magnetism has a given spatial distribution, an optical barcode with a given structure is present, or the security thread has a given magnetic or electrical coding, as is to be expected with real banknotes. In another test step, the individual measured values of the coded property are then compared with associated individual and preferably different tolerance ranges in order to be able to obtain information as to whether the coding has the correct intensity. behavior, for example in the case of predetermined differences in the individual measured values of the coding, is present at different points on the banknote.

Furthermore, e.g. B. A spatially resolved measurement can also be carried out in one test step and a non-spatially resolved measurement in another test step. E.g. by means of the magnetism sensor module 5b, measured values about the magnetism are recorded at different points on the banknote surface. For example, to check acceptance or for category 2 of entered banknotes, only an average value from different recorded magnetism measurement values is formed, which is a measure of the averaged magnetism behavior of the banknote BN, while only in the second step, in which e.g. a distinction is made between genuine and suspected counterfeit banknotes or a check is made to ensure that they can be paid back, the individual magnetism measurement values are compared with individual associated tolerance ranges in order to provide information about magnetism at different points on the banknote, such as B. in the security thread, the serial number or in the printed image.

If state variables such as e.g. Measured values about dog ears, holes and / or cracks can be taken into account. B. in one test step only one Suπunenmeßwert as a measure of the total area of all measured dog ears, holes and / or cracks and in another, preferably subsequent test step, the size of the largest dog ear, hole or crack is checked and compared with predetermined tolerance ranges.

It should be emphasized that the device according to the invention can also be used in a cash deposit machine without repayment functionality. If a check for re-payability is to take place, in this case, the corresponding test steps are also carried out and the banknotes, which are differentiated according to whether they can be re-paid or not, are then filed or marked separately for later post-processing without being able to be re-issued from the machine itself.

Claims

Patent claims

1. A method for checking bank notes (BN) in a direction Banknotenprüfvor- (1), wherein the measured values (M, to M _n) of the obtained to be tested banknote (BN) and by evaluation of the measured values in a number of test steps (S1-S4 ) a classification of the banknote is carried out, the classification distinguishing several classification categories, characterized in that at least in one test step (S2) to decide whether the tested banknote (BN) corresponds to a predetermined classification category, a combination of several measured values is formed and this link size is evaluated, for example by a comparison with an associated tolerance range.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the test is carried out in an automated teller machine with banknote deposit functionality and the deposited banknotes are classified.

3. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the classification distinguishes at least the classification categories of false, suspected counterfeit and genuine banknotes and / or the classification categories "acceptable" and "re-payable".

4. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in another test step (S3) to decide whether the checked banknote of a different predetermined class Identification category corresponds to at least a part or all of the linked measured values being evaluated individually, for example by comparing the measured values and / or variables derived therefrom, which are not linked to other measured values, each with an associated tolerance range.

5. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the plurality of measured values measure different properties of the banknote (BN) and / or measure the same property at different points on the banknote (BN) and / or of different sensor modules (5a-f ) be won.

6. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in test steps (S3) to decide whether the tested banknote corresponds to a predetermined classification category, a spatially resolved measurement and in another test step (S2) to decide whether the checked banknote corresponds to another specified classification category, a non-spatially resolved measurement is carried out and taken into account in the respective decision.

7. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that both banknotes (BN) which are classified as false and banknotes (BN) which are classified as suspected of forgery are retained in the banknote checking device (1) and are not reissued.

8. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that banknotes classified as genuine A distinction can be made between non-reimbursable and reimbursable banknotes.

9. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that first test steps (S1, S2) are carried out to decide whether a banknote is to be classified as incorrect and only if it is decided that the banknote (BN ) is not to be classified as false, further test steps (S3) are carried out to distinguish between genuine and suspected counterfeit banknotes.

10. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that one or more measured values are compared at different test steps with different narrow tolerance ranges in order to be able to differentiate between false and suspected counterfeit banknotes and / or between suspected counterfeit and real banknotes.

11. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in the evaluation each measured value is compared with only one tolerance range assigned to the measured value.

12. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that for the classification of a banknote to be checked (BN) as reimbursable banknote additional test steps (S4) are carried out as for the classification of a banknote to be checked as a real banknote.

13. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the combination of the plurality of measured values is a multi-parameter mathematical function which, for example, forms the minimum and / or maximum and / or a mean value and / or the ratio and / or a linear combination of the measured values to be linked.

14. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the measured values to be linked are obtained at different points on the bank note (BN) to be checked.

15. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in a first and a second different checking step (S2, S3) to decide whether the checked banknote corresponds to a first or second predetermined classification category, a different link of a plurality of measured values, in particular of measured values from different sensor modules (5a-f), and is taken into account in the respective decision.

16. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that a plurality of measured values are each compared with an associated tolerance range, the individual measured value being assessed as positive if the respective measured value lies within the associated tolerance range and for a first one Test step for deciding whether the tested banknote (BN) corresponds to a given classification category, a different ratio of positive and / or negative measured value tests, such as a smaller number of positive or negative measured value tests, is required than for a second test step for Decide whether the checked banknote (BN) corresponds to another specified classification category.

17. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that a different weighting of different measured value tests is carried out when checking the ratio of the positive and / or negative measured value tests.

18. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in a test step it is only decided that the checked banknote (BN) corresponds to the predetermined classification category if one or more predetermined measured values of the banknote (BN ) be checked positively or negatively.

19. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in one or more test steps (S2) a decision on a classification of the banknote as acceptable and in one or more other, in particular subsequent test steps (S4) a decision on a classification the banknote is taken as reimbursable.

20. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that in one or more test steps (S2) a decision on a classification of the banknote as wrong and in one or more other, in particular subsequent test steps (S3) a decision on a classification the banknote is made suspect of forgery and / or in one or more checking steps (S3) a decision on a classification of the banknote as suspect and on one or more other, in particular subsequent checking steps (S4) a decision on a classification of the banknote as is reimbursed.

21. The method according to one or more of the preceding claims, characterized in that the measured values (M _j to M _n ) are obtained from different sensor modules (5a-f) of the banknote checking device (1) and / or different properties of the banknote to be checked (BN ) measure up.

22. Device (1) for checking banknotes (BN) with a sensor unit (5) for obtaining measured values (M _; to M _n ) of the banknote (BN) to be checked and an evaluation device (6) for evaluating the measured values, to carry out a classification of the banknotes (BN), characterized in that the device (1) for carrying out the method is designed according to one or more of the preceding claims.

23. The device according to claim 22, characterized in that the device (1) is a deposit machine or a recycling machine.

24. The device according to claim 23, characterized in that the device (1) has an input compartment (3) for entering banknotes to be checked (BN) and one or more trays (4, 9a-c, 10) for storing the checked banknotes ,

25. Device (1) for checking banknotes (BN) with a sensor unit (5) for obtaining measured values (M _λ to M _n ) of the banknote (BN) to be checked and an evaluation device (6) for evaluating the measured values in order to Classify banknotes (BN), characterized in that the device (1) is a recycling machine (1) and the sensor unit (5) has a sensor module (5f) for measuring the luminescent radiation of feature substances introduced into the paper or the printing ink of the bank note (BN).

26. The apparatus according to claim 25, characterized in that both paid-in and paid-out banknotes (BN) are checked by the sensor unit (5) and / or the luminescent radiation only in the case of paid-in and not paid-out banknotes by the sensor module (5f) of feature substances introduced into the paper or the printing ink is measured.