|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 05:18 AM EDT |
In Bilski, the Supreme Court repeated their opinion in Diehr as
follows.The application in Diehr claimed a previously unknown
method for “molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision
products,” using a mathematical formula to complete some of its several steps by
way of a computer. Diehr explained that while an abstract idea, law of nature,
or mathematical formula could not be patented, “an application of a law of
nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.” Diehr emphasized the need to consider the
invention as a whole, rather than “dissect[ing] the claims into old and new
elements and then … ignor[ing] the presence of the old elements in the
analysis.” Finally, the Court concluded that because the claim was not “an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula, but rather [was] an industrial process
for the molding of rubber products,” it fell within §101’s patentable subject
matter.
The use of a computer in the process is really a passing
reference. I think that it is not unreasonable to characterise Diehr and the
Supreme Court's reprise of Diehr as:the patent was for a
specific
narrow purpose that didn't constrain other uses of the algorithm, also
that the
use of a computer was irrelevant as to whether that use of the
algorithm was
patentable or not.
I think that the 'specific narrow purpose'
concept is dangerous and leads to errors like Mayo. PolR explains in his comment
about abstract ideas and laws of nature.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
