|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 04:18 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court have said there is no problem with an invention having math,
software, computers, laws of nature or abstract ideas as part of its making. In
Diehr they said that the whole of the invention must be considered and that the
courts should not pull apart the elements and discard anything not passing
§101.
However, when the whole invention is considered, it must include an inventive
concept which must be “a product of human ingenuity.” (Chakrabarty) if it is to
pass §101. The Diehr process monitors the temperature of the mould and adjusts
the process times according to a law of nature related to chemical reactions.
Every part of the Diehr invention is prior art. The invention is to pull all
those prior art elements together into the process. The Supreme Court may have
erred in not considering whether the invention included an inventive concept
involving human ingenuity sufficient to pass §101.
However, they did say "We have before us today only the question of whether
respondents' claims fall within the 101 categories of possibly patentable
subject matter.". In other words, they were not attempting to determine
whether all the tests of §101 were passed.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
