|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 29 2013 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
The Patent Office continues to issue patents to FFT methods and Speech
Recognition methods because your interpretation of Diehr and Flook is mistaken.
Even when you quote portions that directly challenge your interpretation you
overlook it.
For example (and using -- for highlighting as who has time to futz with all the
HTML Tags), you quoted:
Thus, in Diehr the Court pointed out that “ ‘a process is --not unpatentable
simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm--.’
(quoting Parker v. Flook). It added that “--an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of
patent protection--.”
The FFTs and Speech Recognition patents that keep issuing fall under the
protection of these statements and others like them.
By the way, you may have been joking, but just in case, with regard to this:
"You might say that relying on the draughtsmans' art should ring warning
bells! From Flook:
The Court then asked whether, to confer patent eligibility, the claim
contained sufficient substance beyond the abstract mathematical formula
itself—that is, “some other inventive concept in its application.” (“A competent
draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any
mathematical formula . . . .”). "
The court was referring to the claim/patent application draftsman, not the
software drafter.
The court was wrong as well. The words in a claim have meaning and purpose and
if the words place the invention in the context of eligible subject matter, then
the claimed subject matter is eligible.
Regarding:
"To repeat Flook:“[I]f a claim is directed essentially to a method of
calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a
specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”"
Don't you see how that is contradicted by the portion of Diehr you quoted?
"the Court pointed out that “ ‘a process is not unpatentable simply because
it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm.’ (quoting Parker v.
Flook). It added that “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”
"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
