|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
In which case the spark of human ingenuity no longer required is now only
exhibited in the crafting of patent claims.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 16 2013 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
The key factor of cooking and industrial process ovens is that temperature can
be controlled at whatever level is desired with in the reachable range for the
oven. And they have been like that since the oven thermostat was invented.
Before that, industrial process ovens relied on highly trained and experienced
observers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 17 2013 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
It measures the mould temperature and uses the well-known formula describing
chemical reaction rates to modify the process time.
I think all the other elements, including the use of the formula for rubber
curing, are prior art. The inventive concept boils down (sorry) to just that
rather than tight thermostatic control of the mould temperature independently of
the process.
As an inventive concept, it is such a small step from using the formula to
determine a fixed time/temperature relationship to dynamically adjusting the
factors according to the measured mould temperature that it falls short of a new
invention.
It's a good job the Supreme Court stressed that they were only there to
determine if the patent was on statutory subject matter. If they had been asked
to adjudicate on the 'new' element of ยง101, I think Diehr would have lost.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
