|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
Yes, and this is the fundamental disagreement we are having.
The question is whether the same physical structure with a
different function can be patentable. The patent act says
yes - we have means plus function claims, for example, that
say you can claim a "means for aiming a cannon." And you
describe in your patent that the means for aiming a cannon
is a computer programmed with algorithm x. And then anyone
who makes a cannon with a computer that is programmed with
algorithm x or equivalents (a circuit, lets say) is
infringing. Of course, if it is trivial, etc. it shouldn't
be patented.
You might not like that this is how the system works, but
this is how it works. Which is why I've been saying that
"will do" functionality trumps "can do" abstractness.
That aside, even if it is not a different machine, if I come
up with a process for aiming the cannon, and that process
includes some math, then I still get to patent the process.
This is Diehr. And here it doesn't matter if it's the same
equipment that existed before - nothing in the Diehr patent
was new - it was all the same.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
