|
|
|
| Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Numerically controlled manufacturing machines date back to the 1950's. (IIRC,
originally they ran off paper tapes.)
THOSE machines weren't obvious. Well, not really obvious. But even then there
was a lot of science fiction that had predicted them. IIRC "How To"
(or maybe "How 2", by, I believe Clifford Simak, was the first one I
encountered, and came out around 1952. But I strongly doubt that it was the
first one written. One could even make an argument that RUR, the work that
invented the term robot, was an example, though those "robots" were
essentially artificial humans. But they were created explicitly to operate
factory equipment.
So I doubt that the concept was ever "non-obvious" in any reasonable
definition of the term. There's a straight line of development from Eli
Whitney's replaceable parts through Ford's assembly line to automated factories.
Every stage (after Eli Whitney) was invented as soon as it was technically
feasible.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
"And the patent IS for a machine. So it is eligible subject matter. The
machine is "a machine which uses the Arhenius equation to control the
curing of rubber". As such it isn't patenting Arhenius at all... And
especially if computer control was in its infancy, then that seems pretty fair
to me."
Yes, it is eligible subject matter. As the District Court points out, now it has
to be shown that there is an inventive and novel concept in the machine.
In Flook, the Supreme Court pointed out that using a computer to control a
process was prior art using existing designs of computer. Using a well known
math formula within the control software was also prior art. When they excluded
all the prior art, Flook failed because of there being no inventive and novel
concept in the machine.
That's why I say that Diehr is on the cusp and might be, rather than is, valid.
It is perilously close to failing as did Flook.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
