|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
If we recognize software as being a list of instructions, a mathematical proof,
to be executed by a computer, then I think everything falls into place.
The machine that executes the instructions can be patented. The list of
instructions can not be patented.
Combining two items, one patentable and one not, does not creae a third,
patentable item. (Combining two items, both patentable in their own right, CAN
create a third patentable item.)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
Yes I did allude to the patent in Diehr.
The computer is always manipulation of symbols because it executes the
instruction cycle.
A non computer element does not suffice. It must be an element which doesn't
manipulate symbols. For example a human doing input, reading output and think
about the meaning of the symbols is a non computer element but he manipulates
symbols and other abstract ideas expressed by language. This is not sufficient
in my mind to make the claim patentable.
In the Diehr claim the last element is the curing of rubber. It is the element
that turns this claim into an industrial process for curing the rubber. remove
that element and only manipulation of symbols is left.
My key idea is that once we know with precision what is the abstract idea there
no room to dispute whether or not there is an abstract idea recited in the
claim.
Also a manipulation of symbols has two interesting properties. (1) it can be
useful and still be abstract and (2) it can have a physical embodiment and still
be abstract. Two of the most common excuses to deny that a claim is not draw to
an abstract idea become untenable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
