Thanks. I think you are struggling with some of the problems that I
am.
I assume the rubber curing comment is in reference to Diamond v
Diehr?
Wouldn't the computer in that invention still be manipulating symbols?
Are you
okay with the invention there because it had non-computer components
too?
What if the use of the computer was the component necessary for
novelty?
Here is claim 1 of the patent at issue there. Isn't this claim
just
manipulating symbols? Do you think this invention is patent eligible
because it
interfaces with the real world (mainly through the last element)?
What if the last
element wasn't present in the
claim, would it still be patent
eligible?
1. A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision
molded
compounds with the aid of a digital computer,
comprising:
providing said computer with a data base for said press
including at least,
natural logarithm conversion data (ln), the activation
energy constant (C) unique
to each batch of said compound being molded, and a
constant (x) dependent
upon the geometry of the particular mold of the
press,
initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of
the press
for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
constantly
determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely
adjacent to
the mold cavity in the press during molding,
constantly providing the
computer with the temperature (Z),
repetitively performing in the
computer, at frequent intervals during each
cure, integrations to calculate
from the series of temperature determinations
the Arrhenius equation for
reaction time during the cure, which is
ln(v)=CZ+x
where v is the
total required cure time,
repetitively comparing in the computer at
frequent intervals during the cure
each said calculation of the total required
cure time calculated with the
Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time,
and
opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates
completion of curing.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
