|
Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 06:43 PM EST |
Except, if you read Diehr properly, it's quite clear that altering the program
does not create a new patentable machine.
The program is "prior art" therefore substituting a different
"prior art" does not alter the patented machine (at least, as far as
patent law is concerned).
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 09:01 PM EST |
AT MOST, you could have a patent on A PARTICULAR TECHNIQUE
for doing bounce back. NOT for doing "bounce back."
In terms of the discussion, the patent on bounce back is like
getting a patent on "curing rubber" - without ANY description
of how. NO ONE can work around it, and NO ONE can read the
patent and, based on the patent alone and "skill in the art"
determine HOW you cured the rubber.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|